Scored Discussion #4, Fall 2019

11/21/2019

Use the reading selections, your take away's from the in-class discussion, and your knowledge of history to:

Post one original question or thought provoking statement with references to the reading or outside knowledge related to your post.
Reply with a question or thought provoking statement to at least 3 other original questions.

A reply to other's comments will only receive credit if it EXTENDS the discussion. Any "I agree, now let me say exactly what you just said or repeat what I said in my own original post again..." will not receive credit.

If you were absent you may post extra comments here to make up the in-class portion of the scored discussion. Each comment is worth 3 points AS LONG AS IT IS A NEW, ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN YOUR OTHER POSTS. You need to comment enough to earn the 15 points of in-class participation in addition to the required one original-three response posts.

H

Alexander Neiberger

11/22/2019 10:12:18 am

Robert Maddox's article stated that, “In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives.", although numerous critics along with the JWPC estimated only 40,000 would die. Do you guys believe that Truman exaggerated the claims of how many Americans would potentially die in an invasion of Japan as justification of using nuclear weapons?

Evan Villani

11/22/2019 11:04:29 am

Well, Maddox quoted Truman, saying he was waiting until he had all the facts before making a decision. Truman felt that a lot of his popularity was riding on this decision. It's true that the Japanese still held strong, actually having 900,000 troops in a single city. You can't exactly estimate the number of deaths in a future conflict, but it didn't look good. Thus, Truman had to justify his decision to drop the bomb to the American Public

Benson Chen

11/22/2019 11:05:06 am

To begin, there’s no way to know for certain what Truman had in his mind when he gave the order, but according to him, he will “not make a decision until he has all the information.” One explanation I have for this is that Truman may have received faulty information which led to his decision

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/22/2019 11:05:50 am

I believe that Truman’s exaggeration was not a major justification for using nuclear weapons. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Truman wanted to save American lives. Even if the estimate was exaggerated, the use of nuclear weapons would still result in much fewer American lives lost which was the primary motivation for Truman’s decision.

Chuhan Ouyang

11/22/2019 01:02:28 pm

I understand that you think that Truman must not exaggerate due to his position as commander-in-chief. However, Maddox points out that "exaggerating the consequences of the alternatives to the bomb is commonplace." Since the statistics were pure military projections, and civilians had no idea if the numbers are exaggerated or not, so numbers could have been easily aggrandized to serve the purpose of proposing the drop of the atomic bomb. Moreover, Truman might have personal, selfish to some extent, desires that drive his decision. Also according to Maddox, "Truman’s refusal to include this provision was motivated not only by his concern with domestic repercussions but also by his own deep conviction that America should avenge the humiliation of Pearl Harbor." Therefore, his desire to retaliation against the Japanese might have fueled his resolve to drop the bomb. And to justify his decisions, he might have exaggerated the numbers.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:24:07 pm

I think it is possible he exaggerated these claims, he wanted to make it seem as if he was doing everything to protect our country. But also, I do not think the number of lives matter, I think protecting the American people should come first.

Lauren Humphlett

11/24/2019 06:23:34 pm

I believe that in some ways Truman did exaggerate this claim but he also couldn't tell what the actual number could be, and neither could the JWPC. The US has had to justify many events in the history of the US and this is one of those cases. On the other hand, Truman had no way of estimating the correct number of American deaths and same with the JWPC. Even today we can't estimate the total number of deaths that will occur in a certain instance so Truman couldn't either.

Lauren Boulia

11/25/2019 01:01:51 pm

Though we could never really know for sure, I solemly believe that Truman exaggerated this number so the public recieved the pitch of atomic warfare better. It's like if you got a giant scratch on your car or bombed a test- you don't give the "full" truth to your parents because you know they'll be angrier.

jared

12/2/2019 09:05:00 am

i do believe that Truman exaggerated the number of soldiers that would die in order to gain support for the use of atomic bombs and also as a way to justify the use. He exaggerated the numbers to make people think that more lives were being saved then taken and make people support the use of the bomb

Darren Chang

12/2/2019 05:25:27 pm

I do think that the 500,000 figure was exaggerated, but to the view of the American public at the time, 40,00 would likely have the same impact as 500,000. The public probably would not have allowed Truman to sacrifice any large number of American soldiers if they were aware that America had a weapon to stop the war. The use was justified and necessary to end the war then and there, but probably not the best course of action long term.

dj gill

12/2/2019 05:45:33 pm

Although 500,000 seems like a bit of an exaggeration, i do not think there is anyway possible that Truman could have predicted the amount of casualties that could have occurred. His priority was to save as many civilian lives as possible and he did not want to take the risk and lose 500 thousand American lives. Therefore, he only wanted to do what was best for Americans.

Avni Arora

12/2/2019 05:47:11 pm

Although there was no actual way to pin point the exact number of American deaths, I believe that the estimate that Truman gave was somewhat accurate.

Daniel

12/3/2019 12:03:53 am

I do believe these claims were strongly exaggerated, however, not as a justification for using nuclear weapons. He exaggerated them, rather, to gain the confidence of the American public, crucial in this time of war

Luna Hou

11/22/2019 10:47:04 am

A large part of the argument Maddox makes in the text is that given the limited information Truman had about various aspects of the war, his decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was the most rational thing to do, though the morality of this action is obviously still being questioned today. That being said, do you believe that Truman’s intentions justified the negative effects that spawned from his decision? Why or why not?

Austin Yao

11/22/2019 11:10:09 am

I truly believe Truman's intentions justified the negative effects of dropping the atomic bomb. In a wartime situation, especially one of the magnitude of World War II, the priority is safety and welfare of your own citizens and country.
There was American Intelligence that pointed to the movement of 500,00 troops in Kyushu, where the United States intended to enter the Japanese mainland. Imagine the terrible death that would have ensued had the US followed through with their plan to invade the Japanese mainland. It would certainly tally in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million. By comparison, about 180,000 people died from the bombings of Nagaski and Hiroshima.
The Japanese were also holding thousands of American soldiers as POWs. The actions committed in the prisoner camps were gruesome and inhuman. Young men starved and were physically and mentally abused—disease was also rampant.

It is hard to believe how Truman could have willingly prolonged the war and death toll by choosing not to drop the atomic bomb and rather invade the Japanese mainland. Imagine having the deaths of hundreds of thousands of volunteer servicemen from battle or from starvation in prisoner of war camps on your conscience when instead you could end all the suffering with a phone call. Ultimately, Truman made the right decision, despite some negative effects of the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Avni

12/2/2019 05:58:14 pm

I agree with this, Truman chose saving his own men instead of saving Japanese lives. During WW2 this was the only rational move to show dominance and save American lives

Isadora Siguenza

12/3/2019 12:53:55 am

I understand how in certain circumstances Truman's actions in dropping the atomic bomb could be justified however, overall I believe that he had many alternatives for ending the war: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, blockade on islands just to name a couple. All possible solutions will have their negative aspects but there were many other alternatives that would have a less damaging affect.

Benson Chen

11/22/2019 11:11:48 am

Truman’s intention surely does not diminish the negative impacts of the war. However, considering the dire situation that “thousands of prisoners of war are living in abysmal living condition,” it was urgent for Truman to make a decision. And his top priority seemed to be to save as much American soldiers as possible, as the leader of a country ought to try to do. Therefore, even if the negative outcomes of Truman’s decision are not completely justified, they should not all be blamed on Truman

Shubhangi Patel

11/22/2019 05:48:24 pm

I think that at the time, Truman was pressured from all sides, from both the American public and government officials to take action against Japan and to uphold the reputation of the US. He was prioritizing American welfare above all else, and by focusing on one goal, he was less influenced by the negative effects that came about because of the atomic bombs. Solely based on his intentions of bringing a quick end to the war, I do think his actions were justified as the decision he took was under pressure during wartime.

Devin Bhatt

11/24/2019 05:44:14 pm

I believe that Truman's intentions justified the negative outcomes of dropping the atomic bomb. Considering that the Japanese military did not want to surrender, Truman had to make a decision of whether to deliver the final blow. The US had been attacking the Japanese even before the dropping of the nuclear bomb. Many cities and infrastructure was destroyed and the military still did not surrender. Truman was put into a position where he almost had to drop the bomb, especially with the pressure of the American people.

Lauren Boulia

11/25/2019 01:06:55 pm

I think that if Truman knew the lasting effects the bomb had, such as the radiation that still ravages Hiroshima and Nagasaki today, he would have hesitated to drop the bomb because other people, civilians, people not even associated with WW2 would be suffering.

Jakub kreuter

12/2/2019 07:04:10 am

Yes, it was justified, given the times and the position do which the US was in. While the weapons demonstrate something that should never be repeated it is a way to warn future combatants against the use of such destructive weapons.

jared

12/2/2019 09:07:22 am

i do believe that Truman's intentions justify the use of the bomb. His justification was ending the war as quickly as possible and saving american lives, even though the numbers were inflated, his intentions do justify the use of the atomic bombs and there negative effects

Varun Iyer

11/22/2019 11:06:50 am

What were the most prominent factors in the decision of the United States to drop atomic bombs in Japan?

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/22/2019 11:18:00 am

The most significant factor for using nuclear weapons against Japan was to save American lives. The estimated death toll for Operation Olympic was very high and the use of nuclear weapons would reduce the number of American lives lost by a significant amount. In addition to this, Japan was not accepting unconditional surrender, which was what the US stated as their goal at the beginning of the war. This put Truman in the position of going back on his promise or continuing to put more pressure on Japan.

Seokhee Kim

11/22/2019 08:12:13 pm

I also believe that the most significant factor for using nuclear weapons against Japan was to save American lives. I also believe that the stubbornness Japan had on the topic of not wanting to change their political system increased the conflict between the U.S and Japan which led to the atomic bomb dropping as the U.S thought that as being rebellious.

Evan Villani

11/22/2019 11:19:06 am

The US wanted to end the war as soon as possible, and was willing to drop 7 atomic bombs had the USSR not entered the war, countless American soldiers were saved by avoiding armed conflict on Japanese soil, and the US wanted to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan without making Japan dependent on the Soviet Union. This follows the idea of democracy and stopping the spread of communism, the public reason the USA entered the war in the first place

Chhan Ouyang

11/22/2019 12:38:15 pm

One factor, though not necessarily the most important one, that goes into the decision of dropping the bomb could be wartime propaganda. According to Maddox, "much wartime propaganda had encouraged the Americas to regard HIrohito as no less a war criminal than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini." This quote demonstrates that the American public were really against the Japanese from a moral standpoints. The Americans, because they were on the enemy side of Japanese, saw Japanese as extremely vicious, especially with their holocauses behaviors (Nanjing HOlocaust) in China. Because of this characterization of the Japanese as evil and criminal-like, the US public in general was not considering how the destruction as a result of the nuclear bombs could be immoral. Rather, they considered the bombs as a way to suppress Japanese' immorality. Therefore, there were no public protests against the the bomb, which might have led to the eventual decision of dropping the bombs.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 05:39:55 pm

While I agree with Rushil and Seokhee in claiming the most significant factor for using nuclear weapons against Japan was to save American lives, I want to add that the most significant motivation in the long-term and more broader perspective was to prevent Soviet's expansion over Asia which might've resulted in higher tension against Soviet during the Cold War for Asia was great economic and political source to America.

Devin Bhatt

11/24/2019 05:46:43 pm

I believe that the most prominent factors in dropping the bomb was definitely saving American lives, the fact that the Japanese refused to surrender, and public pressure from the American people and media.

Lauren Boulia

11/25/2019 01:11:42 pm

I believe the most compelling reasons for the United States to drop the bomb were the Japanese policy of non-surrender and the potential for excess U.S. casualties. Both of these reasonings are what I believe made Truman decide to drop the bomb in the end.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:58:19 pm

I believe the most prominent factor was Japan’s inability to become submissive. Japan made the public more alarmed by the threat of nuclear warfare by exaggerating the conditions. The Japanese minister of war told the cabinet that “the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs.. they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.” The quote of the Japanese minister of war showed that fear was stricken into the Japanese people by the government to make them more passionate towards retaliation against the US, and it showed their inability to fall to the US even with the devastation implemented by the first atomic bomb.

Nadiya Patel

11/30/2019 04:03:50 pm

I do not think that only one factor can be identified as the most significant factor, rather I think it is a mixture of American pressure on Truman, desire for revenge following Pearl Harbor, and preservation of American lives. Truman had a great amount of pressure on him to make a quick decision on whether or not to utilize atomic weapons. This pushed him to not fully look at the detrimental effects, which haunted him 'til the day he died. Another major factor was the pressure on Truman to get revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbor. In addition, Truman was looking out for the large amount of American soldiers lives that would have been lost if America decided to invade. In the text it said, "One can only imagine what would have happened if tens of thousands of American boys had died or been wounded on Japanese soil and then it had become known that Truman had chosen not to use weapons that might have ended the war months sooner."

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 07:55:59 pm

Japan’s continual seek for help from the Soviet Union clearly proved to the Americans that Japan wouldn’t surrender or communicate with the United States. Moreover, even after the surrender, the Japanese wanted too much control and were inconsistent which raised questions among the Americans. The Japanese mentality was to die with honor, regardless of the number of casualties which was another reason for the President to make the decision as the Japanese would not have come to an agreement on either sides(Soviet Union and the US) and therefore the war would have taken a longer time to end and more lives would have been lost.

Regan Glass

11/30/2019 11:20:15 pm

The most prominent factor in the decision to drop the atomic bomb was because Japan was planning on attacking America head-on. Truman did not want to risk what could have happened by not dropping the bomb because America already went through so much trauma and loss from recent years before WWII. They wanted to end fighting once and for all so that it would not have to be a continuous problem for many years in the future.

Ameena Farooqui

12/2/2019 08:09:24 am

In some ways I believe the attacks were motivated by Trumans own deep conviction that American should avenge the humiliation of Pearl Harbor. Hence it could be one of the factors in dropping the atomic bomb in Japan.

jared

12/2/2019 09:12:23 am

i agree with this comment, in that Truman did secretly want revenge for pearl harbor, and that the use of the atomic bombs was used as a way to get back at the Japanese as a demonstration of power as well.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

12/2/2019 08:42:29 pm

I feel like if this statement is made, it's important to consider the rest of government and their role in agreeing to the decision or the circumstances in which they agreed to drop the bomb. I feel like it's important to see how divided the opinion was in the government.

Femi Chiegil

12/2/2019 10:41:15 am

I would say there were many factors which led to dropping the atomic bomb but the major factors were to save the Americans and make Japan surrender if not, a costly invasion would have been necessary. Other reasons may include Testing this weapon out, and impressing the soviet union.

joey caputo

12/2/2019 11:09:40 am

I believe the biggest factors in dropping the atomic bombs were to end the war and to save as many lives as possible. In Truman’s diary, he stated that he was primarily stuck between invading and dropping the atomic bombs and ultimately he came to dropping the bombs due to the more lives that can be saved.

Avni Arora

12/2/2019 06:00:11 pm

I think the biggest factor was to retaliate against the Japanese for bombing pearl harbor and to assert dominance.

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:48:06 pm

One of the best lines that described the reasons that culminated in the dropping of the atomic bombs (in addition to supposed political motivations) was: "“Thus this is a story with no heroes but no villains, either -- just men. The ending of the Pacific War was in the last analysis a human drama whose dynamics were determined by the very human characteristics of those involved: ambition, fear, vanity, anger, and prejudice.” Personally this line helped me to gain a new perspective on the war as not something merely "statistical" or based off of pure political/economic reasoning, but also based off of human feelings/drama. This could potentially include racist sentiments (as America has done in the past with the Filipino conflicts, Mexican-American War, etc.), general "revenge" feelings after Pearl Harbor, etc. Limiting the reasons for dropping the bomb to a specific few political/economic/"statistical" factors is a little bit too narrow of an approach.

Arabella Cai

12/2/2019 09:33:22 pm

Personally speaking, I believe the most prominent factor in President Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs in Japan was the legacy of Roosevelt. It is clear that President Roosevelt had defined the nation’s goal in ending the war as the enemy’s “unconditional surrender,” a term coined to reassure the Soviet Union that the Western allies would fight to the end against Germany. It was also an expression of the American temperament, in which the United States was accustomed to winning wars and dictating the peace.Truman was acutely aware that the country also wanted victory as quickly as possible.

Annie Pi

1/8/2020 12:23:39 pm

“Truman’s refusal to include this provision was motivated not only by his concern with domestic repercussions but also by his own deep conviction that America should avenge the humiliation of Pearl Harbor.” This quote reveals that there are many sides that led to the final decision to use the atomic bombs. It also shows that Truman possibly allowed his personal beliefs and emotions dictate his actions and lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Evan Villani

11/22/2019 11:11:01 am

Historians today that there were not considered enough at the time. Do you feel like any ideas were not thoroughly explored? Also, why is it important that it was the US who dropped the only atomic bombs in war? If they hadn't, what do you think would change?

Evan Villani

11/22/2019 11:13:29 am

Some historians today feel that there were good options that were not explored***
Me sorry

Austin Yao

11/22/2019 01:06:03 pm

Ideas were definitely explored, although perhaps not as thoroughly as we do now in hindsight. However, the Japanese were, in my eyes, stalling the peace treaty and making unreasonable and ambiguous requests. At some point, American patience waned and the danger of a direct invasion prompted them to resort to atomic weapons.
The US were the first to achieve this new technology, and it also helped that it occurred during a major period of war. This unique situation arguably caused the US to become the first and only country to drop an atomic weapon on another country. I also believe that the horrors exposed by actually dropping an atomic weapon on an actual civilian area dissuaded other countries from launching nuclear weapons in the future.
If they hadn't dropped the atomic weapon, the Cold War would have been a lot worse. The Soviets would have grabbed more Japanese land, and more importantly the humanitarian horrors of the atomic bomb would not have been known. This might have led to an actual nuclear war, as both the US and USSR would not have thought twice about launching nuclear weapons.

Hallie Salas

11/22/2019 02:38:47 pm

In our class discussion, talk of a blockade was brought up. Although the US did effectively impose blockades on Japan I think a large scale blockade could have been a viable option. It was important that only the US dropped bombs because it propelled them into the international spotlight and there is no telling what would have happened if other countries decided to drop atomic bombs in response to America.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:53:36 pm

I think that Truman and the entire government spent large amounts of time exploring all the possibilities. There was a great emphasis on the amount of time and extent that was put into the decision-making process in “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” In this article it shows that Truman chose the specific path that he did because no other option would give the response they intended. Truman wrote, “I have decided Japanese strategy-shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I’ll make it when I have all the facts.” This quote from Truman illustrates the necessity of implementing an attack in the Japanese but the severity was still largely controversial and a difficult decision that would take extreme amounts of care and research for the verdict. I think it was important for the US to drop the bomb because the US joined the war to exact revenge on Japan, so it would only make sense for them to be the one that makes the Japanese empire topple. If the US had not dropped the bomb and some other country would have done it, I think the outcome would largely be the same except for maybe the type of government that was installed in Japan by the US would be different.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 10:01:25 am

I think that America saw that Japan didn't surrender even after giving out the warning and took that as a sign to just bomb Japan, but didn't take into consideration the Japanese ideal of how the emperor had to protected at all costs and how the Japanese culture itself revolved around much more different ideals than American cultural ideals. Instead of taking note of this, America kind of projected the same ideals of its country on Japan without thinking that each country may have a different perspective than America. If this cultural difference was more thoroughly explored, then maybe America would have been able to find a different way to deal with the situation.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

12/2/2019 08:44:59 pm

I think the US would have a different reputation if they hadn't been the ones to drop the bomb first. It also would have made US a less scary opponent? I feel like there hasn't been enough emphasis on what happened while the decision was being made.

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/22/2019 11:21:14 am

How has the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan affected American culture and identity since then?

Annie Hu

11/22/2019 01:42:39 pm

I think that Americans had an increased sense of righteousness and biased morals from the atomic bombings. Although it was during war time, Americans did not view the atomic bombings as morally wrong because it had been against their enemies that had done horrible things to them. American morals were skewed by the war to justify the bombing of innocent people. It also gave American people the sense of being a powerful nation.

Hallie Salas

11/22/2019 02:32:00 pm

The dropping of the bombs definitely propelled America forward in world status which in turn affected the American public's perception of War. America had a heightened sense of power after the droppings, yet there was also plenty of internal debate over the morality of said droppings.

Chuhan Ouyang

11/22/2019 02:39:03 pm

You are definitely correct that the dropping of the bomb marks a turning point in America’s position in the world. Before WWI, America has been “haunted by Washington’s ghost,” as we attempt to remain neutral and stay out of foreign entanglements due to Washington’s Farewell Address. However, America’s deep involvement in the WW2, as evident in the dropping of the extremely violent bomb, shows the world that America has the resolve and the power to interfere world affairs. As mentioned in the textbook, America rose to become the “boss” of the world after WW2, because European countries are deeply scarred by the prolonged conflicts. It is without doubt that the dropping of the bomb demonstrates America’s superior army power, which solidified the country’s supreme position.

Shubhangi Patel

11/22/2019 05:45:08 pm

The dropping of the atomic bombs has clearly shifted American mindset since WW2. Being the first country to employ nuclear weapons, US showed other countries, especially the Soviet Union, what it was capable of executing. Not only has it changed American morals, as we even today extremely regret our past actions and have expressed our guilt towards the Japanese, but it also has changed world identity, as it eventually led to the establishment of ideals such as MAD.

Thien Do

11/22/2019 10:26:41 pm

The dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan propelled the US as one of the greatest superpowers in the world. Although such an act made many Americans proud of their country's power, it also made them stop and think. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a huge shock to the world, and it made us consider the great responsibility we had in our hands from that power. I believe this contributed to the increasing belief of a policing force in the East, because we thought that with such great power, we should be the ones to also try and help others. I also think this contributed to how we handled the losing countries after WWII. Unlike after WWI, which greatly punished Germany, we attempted to support and create more favorable conditions for them. We lent large amounts of money and even had events such as the Berlin Airlift.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 05:52:04 pm

I believe that the result of dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, eventually leading them to surrender and World War to end, was greatly radical. The destructive effects of atomic bomb shown through Japan's casualties showed the world that America is technologically, and militarily advanced country, thus elevating America's status in the world. With perspective of this, the American patriotism and pride were raised to affect our culture and identity, perceived as higher place in world's hierarchy from both Americans' and other countries around the world's perspective.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:19:55 pm

I think since the bomb droppings, America has seemed to be a more powerful country. Although the bomb dropping caused a lot of negatives a positive could be that America was seen as powerful and a country to not mess with in the future.

Aryaman Bana

11/24/2019 12:06:28 am

During the Cold War in the latter part of the 20th century, American culture was definitely one of national pride, as is evident in the arms race and space race. However, this national mindset is not as prevalent anymore due to the realization that nuclear warfare, no matter how much it elevates our status in the world, can bring about disastrous consequences, such as with Mutually Assured Destruction.

Devin Bhatt

11/24/2019 05:51:10 pm

At first it was praised because we had ended the war with Japan, which caused peace throughout much of the world. After sometime many people began to see it as unnecessary and immoral. This affects American Culture and Identity because it divides us as a country. World War two was one of the largest wars ever fought and if we are still thinking of America as an immoral country, even after winning the war, because we dropped the atomic bomb, it most definitely hurts our culture and identity as Americans.

Jenny Caputo

11/24/2019 07:10:36 pm

I think dropping the bombs affected America's identity by making America higher in status. I think dropping the bombs set the US forward and made it seem like the US is more powerful than other countries.

Joey Caputo

12/2/2019 11:17:00 am

I disagree with this because although America may have had a higher status due to to the atomic bombs and creating them. They now have to be burdened with dropping bombs and determining the fate of innocent civilians.

Nadiya Patel

11/30/2019 04:23:58 pm

I think following dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, America had an overall feeling of dominance and superiority over the rest of the world and this is seen by the way that it was used in popular culture at the time. In one article, it stated that the atomic bomb was used as a marketing tactic with the creation of the "atomic cocktail" and "atomic inspired pin and earring sets." Over time, I think American society has started to see the massive detrimental effects that we had in Japan. Due to this, I believe that America has been a lot more cautious about how they and other countries utilize nuclear weapons.

Regan Glass

11/30/2019 11:24:29 pm

America has been affected in many different ways ever since the atomic bombs were dropped. After segregation was close to coming to an end, Japanese internment camps were created to start the cycle of segregation all over again. Japanese-Americans were looked at in a very negative connotation and it took many years to change. In some ways I believe that Americans are also frightened that Japan will create a large weapon (maybe atomic) to drop on us in the future for revenge, or to avenge those that innocently suffered (like in the passage we read about the future of America).

Jakub kreuter

12/2/2019 07:06:55 am

I think that directly following the bomb many Americans who were not horrified or in the know about the results of the bomb were elated. They saw this demonstration of American power as a way to show the world that the US was a true military power. That’s not without the many Americans who realized the destruction and were horrified.

dj gill

12/2/2019 05:53:59 pm

The dropping of the nuclear bombs has greatly impacted the culture and identity of both the United States and Japan. A major debate was the morality and the ethical reasons behind the bomb being dropped. Also the dropping of the bombs portrays america as a global superpower with a military that is advanced.

Austin Yao

11/22/2019 11:30:24 am

What, if anything, did the United States learn about nuclear weapons as a result of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? To what extent did this knowledge influence US military policy regarding nuclear weapons in succeeding decades?

Evan Villani

11/22/2019 12:47:14 pm

The US obviously learned about the destructive power of these weapons, and the lasting effect on a place and society. This being the first time they were used, Truman was able to avoid having the US come into question of whether or not what they did should be considered a crime against humanity. He did this by ignoring the letter sent by Japan, but also because they won, the US were the ones able to put Japan on trial, instead of vice versa. Either way, the knowledge of atomic bombs and the fact that the USSR would also build them brought about great tensions in the Cold War, such as the during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What is mutually assured destruction and how has it shaped foreign policies globally?

Alexander Neiberger

11/22/2019 01:19:57 pm

The United States learned that we need to be more cautious with experimental weapons and that nuclear weapons were extremely destructive weapons with horrible short and long term effects. This influenced US policy by restricting the use of nuclear weapons, due to international agreements among countries.

Shubhangi Patel

11/22/2019 05:56:22 pm

I believe that the US learned about its true military and nuclear capacity as a result of the atomic bombings. It learned to which extent its engineering and science programs succeeded in order to produce and create such weapons of mass destruction. I think it also influenced US's foreign policy as people were taken aback from the effects of the bombs that they most likely introduced strict limits on nuclear weapons, which arised during the Cold War.

Jake Park-Walters

11/23/2019 10:45:41 am

Aside from learning the true power of atomic weapons, the United States learned that the dropping of atomic weapons was the ultimate attack. United States' foreign policy developed in such a manner, both during and after the cold war, to prevent all possibility of receiving an atomic attack. Thus, the United States learned fear when we dropped the bombs because we knew what we should hope never happen to us.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 06:01:38 pm

I would obviously claim that the atomic bomb used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki revealed the destructive power of nuclear weapons from the casualties and results of bombings. Connecting this, I think that the reason why there hasn't been any use of nuclear weapons is directly influenced bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught the whole world of the power of nuclear weapons and from this, and by this, nuclear weapons are limited and controlled more than any other war decisions which is clearly evident in US military policies and UN's direct limitation over many countries' in their ownership and development of nuclear weapons.

Lauren Humphlett

11/24/2019 06:26:59 pm

The US learned the extent of destruction that can be caused by a nuclear weapon. Because they now know how many lives can be lost at impact and the lives lost in the aftermath, the US wants to disarm all countries of nuclear weapons in fear of those weapons being dropped on the US.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:43:06 pm

The US learned the severity of effects the bombs had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By seeing the effects, such as birth defects and radiation poisoning, the US government still stood by its choice to use the bomb, but they then saw the devastation as a horror. The US feared the absolute destruction they created and how it could possibly be used against them. To summarize, the knowledge acquired by the US by dropping the atomic bombs made the US increase regulations and restrictions around nuclear weapons.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 08:43:44 pm

The US learned about the lasting impacts of the atomic bombs from Hiroshima & Nagasaki because the bombs from the Manhattan project had been tested in the New Mexico desert so the US could see what the extent of the bombs were. But these bombs weren't used where people lived, so the US didn't know what was going to happen to the people where the bomb was dropped and they were unaware of the lasting impact that the bombs left. This knowledge influenced US military policy regarding nuclear weapons later on with how the US became more reluctant to use the bombs on people. During the Cold War the US tried to avoid using the atomic weapons at all costs because they knew it could lead to nuclear warfare around the world. Today still the US will only use the bombs as a last resort because they know how destructive the weapons really are and how it will impact the world if they launch an attack against another country.

Anastasia Neff

12/1/2019 06:16:42 pm

The dropping of these two atomic bombs on japan has greatly influenced military policy regarding nuclear weapons. From the information gained after the dropping of these two bombs we have learned of the both short term and long term effects of dropping an atomic bomb. After seeing just how detrimental the affects of these bombs were we have agreed to not drop anymore. With the new technology we have today bombs have over 100x the power of the ones dropped on Japan. If these bombs were ever dropped we would most certainly fall into a nuclear winter.

dj gill

12/2/2019 07:05:35 pm

I think that the United States learned about the sheer destructive power of these bombs and the long lasting effects of some things such as radiation. In the succeeding decades, there was a lot of talk about the ethical and the moral reasons behind the reasons of why the bomb was dropped.

DeQuevyando Ford-Michaelson

11/22/2019 11:59:45 am

How significant was the bias of Hasegawa in the second reading?

Chuhan Ouyang

11/22/2019 02:48:05 pm

Personally, I think there is little, if any, bias in the article by Hasegawa. Although it can be inferred that Hasegawa has a Japanese origin, the author provides a rather comprehensive account of all alternatives possible, not necessarily favoring any one of the provided alternatives. Moreover, Hasegawa did not attempt to deny Japanese emperor’s responsibility in causing the tragic of the bomb. According to the reading, because Hiroshito was adament in upholding Japan’s constitutional monarchy, he denied chances of surrender, thereby causing there eventual drop of the bomb. Therefore, Hasegawa implicitly acknowledge that the Japanese have a share of responsibility as well. The author does not have bias towards the Japanese, not the US.

Varun Pillai

12/5/2019 10:17:14 pm

I feel that there was a bit of bias in the second reading. Hasegawa, after all, grew up in the post bombing era.He had to experience the hardships of the new life and reconstruction of Japan. This may have swayed his opinion a bit.

Chuhan Ouyang

11/22/2019 12:41:49 pm

There was virtually no one in the government that protested against the dropping of the bomb because of its immorality. In fact, according to Maddox, "only Eisenhower claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb." Given this context, why do you think that those high-standing military officials have little or no concern for the destructive effects of the bomb? Do those officials have zero concerns for the opponents' civilian lives?

Austin Yao

11/22/2019 12:57:42 pm

The priority of the military officials was first and foremost to win the war with an unconditional surrender as soon as possible, so that the nation could begin to reintegrate itself into a peacetime society. Using the atomic bomb, which would end the war quickly while also saving many American lives, was quite frankly an easy decision. Moreover, officials may not have known the radioactive effects of the atomic bomb due to the early stages of nuclear technology. It is also important to note that World War II was a total war, which diminished the morality of sparing civilians.

Cynthia Yan

11/22/2019 02:34:49 pm

The textbook also mentions that one of the reasons the bomb was dropped was because during WWII, since like Austin said, it was a total war, so many atrocities had been committed against civilians (such as other air strikes in Japan, Britain, and other countries), that another the moral implications of a massive bombing of a civilian city were diminished. Moreover, the only other alternative that the US seriously considered was a mainland invasion which was estimated to cost the lives hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, which the US clearly prioritized over the lives of Japanese civilians, especially since this argument continues to be used to justify the bombing of Japan, today.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 06:08:30 pm

I would disagree that these officials had zero concerns for the opponent's civilian lives, however, I think that their choices reflected their priority on serving their country. As the first article states about Truman's "duty to the men under his command not shared by those sitting in moral judgement decades later,"I strongly think that these officials had responsibilities to, unfortunately, put their nation, Americans' lives over other nations', Japanese civilians lives.

Aryaman Bana

11/24/2019 12:02:54 am

I would like to believe that the military officials realized how destructive the effects of the bomb were. However, these officials wanted to put the interests of their nation before those of other nations. Therefore, they found it necessary to drop the bomb, despite the atrocities that came with it.

Darren Chang

12/2/2019 05:27:46 pm

I think that the effects of the bomb were understood by the American officials, but the actual emotional/moral impact wasn't taken into account during decision making. They were likely aiming to end the war as soon as possible, and as they have a weapon to do that, they will use it. The pressure of war and trying to create peace probably pushed their decision as well.

Arabella Cai

12/2/2019 10:07:29 pm

I absolutely agree with everyone's claims here and in addition to that, I personally believe that the American military officials did have concerns for the destructive effects of the bombs because even though the atomic bomb was an unprecedented powerful weapon at that time, it was reasonable for the officials to imagine the drastic and devastating results of dropping the atomic bombs. However, due to their urgent need to end the World War II as quickly as possible, it is possible that they just ignored the destructive nature of the atomic bombs. Moreover, since the attack on Pearl Harbor was an extremely savage action that the Japanese committed to the Americans, it is logical to assume that the American military officials attempted to revenge through the atomic bombing.

Cynthia Yan

11/22/2019 01:07:10 pm

One major obstacle to considering other options besides dropping the atomic bomb was, as mentioned by Maddox, a commitment to upholding democracy and self-determination in Japan, making it difficult to justify the preservation of Japan’s imperial system or even a constitutional monarchy. This also seemed to spur the US’s haste in ending the war, because they didn’t want the Soviet Union to establish influence in Japan or its colonies by entering the conflict. How else did differing ideologies between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan prevent them from reaching a less destructive peace?

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:38:49 pm

The USSR, The US, and Japan had different ideologies in regards to who they considered enemies. The US and Japan definitely were at odds with one another, which caused them to have the most direct warfare against one another. The US and the USSR were not inherently enemies but were more wary of one another, which put them at odds because the USSR had wary values and loyalties. Japan and the USSR were not in direct conflict with one another, like the US was, but rather in conflict against other side of the Axis prowess, Germany. By only having one clear distinct ideology of who was enemies with who, all three countries were fearing each other. This caused the US to create destructive peace because they wanted to have a show of power against the USSR and they also wanted to destroy Japan as an act of revenge.

Annie Hu

11/22/2019 01:09:43 pm

In the second article by Hasewaga, he mentions a letter sent by Japan about the atomic bombings and that it was a crime against humanity but the letter was forgotten. Do you think that the atomic bombings should be considered a crime against humanity? Why or why not?

Alexander Neiberger

11/22/2019 01:33:14 pm

I don't think atomic bombs should be considered a crime against humanity. In the second article, Hasewaga states, "This is a story with no heros hut no real Gillian's, either-just men.". This quote is important because it shows that the destructive power of the bombs weren't known nor intentional, and even if they were, everyone involved in the war committed immoral attacks such as, Germans bombing british civilians, Japanese carrying out biological experiments, and etc.

Hallie Salas

11/22/2019 02:27:15 pm

In this situation I think it is hard to consider the bombs a crime against humanity. The morality of the bombs can definitely be argued but there is lots of back story behind the dropping and each side had committed wrongs against the other that premeditated the dropping of the bomb.

Rohan Das

11/22/2019 11:01:15 pm

If we were to consider the atomic bombings, or nuclear weapons in general, as crimes against humanity, what parts of the bomb would constitute as a crime against humanity? Would it be the sheer number of deaths? If so, guns in WWII killed much more. The suffering of those hit by radiation? Mustard/chlorine gas or shrapnel grenades also had horrific effects beyond death? Would be the involvement of innocent civilians? Traditional bombings in Europe also involved civilians.

Jake Park-Walters

11/23/2019 10:42:09 am

The United Nations defines a crime against humanity as "any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:" murder, rape, torture to name a few. The significant part of the definition, however, is the targeting of a civilian population. Though US officials knew the extent of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombs were actually targeted towards the military presence in both locations. Thus, I do not believe it was a crime against humanity.

Sharayu Gugnani

11/24/2019 11:21:08 am

Though the bombs were targeted at the military presence, it is because of the high civilian population that we consider it a crime against humanity.

Era Joshi

11/28/2019 08:43:06 am

I feel like Japan would have surrendered easily if they knew America was going to drop the bombs. Japan was already trying to negotiate with the Soviet Union before America came in. If Japan had heard beforehand what America was planning to do, I feel they would have dropped negotiations and immediately surrendered to save their people and their land.

Era Joshi

11/28/2019 08:45:38 am

Sorry, this is a response to the question below.

Jakub kreuter

12/2/2019 07:13:14 am

No, while these weapons were undeniably inhumane it was merely a result of a brutal war. This weapon was without borders and without restrictions, no country had ever dropped one on an inhabited city. There was nothing that could be compared to it so while much of the bomb was calculated, just how much death resulted would still shock those who dropped it. Now today we see the true results of this bomb we as a planet may move forward restricting the use of such weapons.

Hallie Salas

11/22/2019 02:40:01 pm

Do you believe Japan would have surrendered before November 1st without the dropping of the atomic bombs or soviet entry into the War?

Seokhee Kim

11/22/2019 08:05:20 pm

I believe that Japan would have surrendered before November 1st without the dropping of the atomic bombs or soviet entry into the War as the second article states “The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, concluded that Japan would have surrendered before November 1 without the atomic bombs and without Soviet entry into the war." This shows that they were already going to surrender before November 1st

Aryaman Bana

11/24/2019 12:00:53 am

I believe that the Japanese would have surrendered without the droppings of the bomb because they would be able to honor their ""warrior tradition" of fighting until the end. This would not be the case had the bombs been dropped.

Jenny Caputo

11/24/2019 07:13:22 pm

I think Japan might have surrendered with only the Soivet entry but I don't think they would have without it. The Soviet's entry into the war was a major influence in Japan's decision to surrender as shown in the article and I think they would not have surrendered before November 1st if they didn't enter the war.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 08:22:46 pm

Adding on to Jenny's point on the Soviet's influence on the war, I think that it played a big role in Japan’s surrender and it was the betrayal of the Soviets that led to the Japan's ultimate downfall at the end. Stalin was a much more active player in the decision making process of the invasion of the Japanese territory than it is shown or written by most of the writers. Therefore, I believe that the bombing of the United States did not do much to cause Japan to initiate between the war parties for peace.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 09:44:12 pm

I believe that the war would have ended before November 1st without the dropping of the atomic bombs but I do not think that it would have ended before November 1st without the Soviet intervention. Hasegawa's text mentions that Japans decision to surrender was a political decision not a military one so without the bombs the war would likely ended after Soviet entry into war before Nov 1, but since the decision was political that meant the Soviet intervention was a necessary shock for Japan to decide to surrender. The reason they surrendered was because they were holding out hope that the Soviet Union was going to support them but as soon as the Soviet entered the war Japan saw that they wouldn't help them and this pushed Japan to surrender.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 10:25:10 am

I think Japan would have surrendered because the main goal of the country not wanting to fight is because of their needing to protect the emperor and uphold their own honor. Even without knowing of the exact impact he bomb was going to have on Japan, the Japanese (or anyone for that matter) would've had some sort of idea and wanted to prevent the destruction by surrendering. And although I believe in Japan, people believed they shouldn't surrender to keep their honor to the country, they knew there was nothing they could have done to attack against a bomb.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 08:02:54 pm

Japan did not provide any strong clues of surrendering as they did not believe in it. Truman and his military officials took a long time to weigh the outcomes of a bombing and also considering other options such as the invasion of the island of Kyushu. The Japanese were too prideful to surrender and this made Truman take the action that he did. Moreover, the opposition was ready to destroy its own homeland in defense for the final win. The Japanese were also given a warning that was clearly disregarded and this could have potentially saved so many lives. Therefore, I do not think that Japan would have surrendered before the atomic bombings by the United States.

Shubhangi Patel

11/22/2019 05:39:36 pm

Various reasons led to Truman approving the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the surrender of the Japanese. Do you believe, based on the evidence presented, that the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki was required after the first one? Should or did the US wait for adequate response from the Japanese before dropping the second bomb?

Rohan Das

11/22/2019 10:44:12 pm

If you remember correctly, according to the "Yes" article, the Japanese played off the first bomb as an act of nature, as they believed that something with such destructive possibility simply couldn't exist. Therefore, it was necessary for a 2nd bombing to occur in order to send the message of unconditional surrender across.

Cynthia Yan

11/23/2019 08:38:28 pm

I think it was the second bomb combined with the invasion by the Soviet Union that finally convinced Japan to surrender. Like Rohan said, after the first bomb, Japanese military officials denied its destruction because of their commitment to unconditional surrender, and their continued belief that the Soviet Union would intervene in their favor. However, the second bomb, combined with the invasion of Manchuria instead of Soviet support for Japan allowed officials to recognize that Japan had a very small chance of victory. Moreover, though it didn't happen, the US wanted Japan to surrender before the Soviet Union became involved in the war so there wouldn't be communist influence in post-war Asia.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 09:53:24 pm

While Hasegawa gives some options where the second bomb wasn't needed I believe that the US needed to drop the second atomic bomb. In Maddox's text he explains that the Japanese minister of war after the 1st bomb refused to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic which lead to American officials believing that they more than 1 bomb to be dropped to cause Japan to surrender. After the second bomb the Japanese minster of war recognized that the bomb was atomic and said that the US had hundreds of bombs which influenced Japans decision to surrender. So I believe that the second bomb was necessary because it got Japan to recognize it as atomic and that recognition influenced Japan to surrender.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 10:36:53 am

Based on the evidence, I still think that the US should have waited for a response. I realize that the second bomb was meant to clarify that the bombs were truly atomic, but at a time where atomic bombs were fairly new, I think that the notion that such a threat couldn't be true is a fair claim to make. What the US should've done is waited for a bit more time, giving the Japanese time to process the situation and make a proper stance based off of the current situation. The Nagasaki was dropped a mere 3 days after the Hiroshima bomb, so that feeling of "this can't be real, can it?" that the military officials swore by could be practically thought out and the Japan's current status in the war could be analyzed before they surrendered.

Darren Chang

12/2/2019 05:30:18 pm

I think that the US should have waited for a response before dropping the second bomb. The second likely wasn't necessary for surrender, although it did motivate the decision greatly. Even so, I think that the shock of the bomb would spread through Japan eventually, maybe not before November 1st, but Japan would likely be weakened and looking to surrender soon.

Seokhee Kim

11/22/2019 08:05:40 pm

Do you believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary in order to stop the war?

Rohan Das

11/22/2019 10:36:02 pm

No, I don't believe the atomic bomb was necessary in order to stop the war, as sooner or later, whether that be axis powers being defeated in Europe or Soviet invasion of Japan, the war would've ended one way or another. I do however believe the atomic bomb was necessary for ending the war as soon as possible and at the least cost of human life possible.

Thien Do

11/22/2019 11:01:34 pm

I believe that the droppings of the atomic bomb was absolutely not necessary in order to stop the war. In the goal of stopping the war, the Soviet invasion, the US probable invasion, or a favorable negotiation for the Japanese would have been able to complete the goal. However, I think that not all of the US motivations were to just stopping the war, but stopping the war with favorable conditions to themselves. We couldn't let the Soviets make the Japanese unconditionally surrender, because then the Soviets would probably make Japan a puppet state for their communism. Allowing Japan to continue having a constitutional monarchy is somewhat similar to the problem. I believe the US did not want this to happen in order to set up a democratic nation that would trade with us. In the end, it was more of a race of time. We wanted to get the Japanese to surrender to us before they surrendered to the Soviets, and thus a motivation of dropping the atomic bomb was to give Japan more pressure.

Jake Park-Walters

11/23/2019 10:48:44 am

I believe that it was because of three factors. First, the Japanese honor code and their complete willingness to sacrifice their soldiers lives for the nation. Second, the war would have dragged on in preparation for a land invasion, in which time Japan could have recovered some military power to rejoin the war effort. Third, American citizens would not have been in favor of a direct invasion due to hundreds of thousands of estimated casualties. Without public support, wars become extremely difficult to fight.

Lauren Humphlett

11/24/2019 06:29:24 pm

I don't believe the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary. There were many other ways the US could've gone to end the war that would have saved many lives that weren't just their own. However, the war ended so quickly due to the dropping of the bomb.

Jenny Caputo

11/24/2019 07:16:49 pm

I think the bomb might not have been necessary because of how much Japan depended on Soviet neutrality. As mentioned in the article, "Japan relied on Soviet neutrality both militarily and diplomatically." With that said, I think if the Soviets entered the war and the bomb wasn't dropped, Japan would have surrendered.

Dhruv Joshi

11/25/2019 07:15:44 pm

I do believe the droppings of the bombs were necessary. From a standpoint of the Japanese mindset at the time, they were strongly willing to go through whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. The actions taken went to extremes, and they've even killed a good portion of the American civilian population during Pearl Harbor. I believe the atomic bombs were probably the most effective, and least costly (in terms of both money and human lives) in order to open the eyes of the Japanese and tell them to stop with brute force.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 07:31:34 pm

No, I do not believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary in order to stop the war. Truman regretted the decision he made which was stated in the second article that clearly asserted that even though Truman did not confess, he still spoke about the decision much that he obviously thinks he did not make the right decision. I thought it was disturbing to learn that most of the victims being targeted were innocent civilians and in my opinion, the target that was chosen was wrong because innocent people were not involved in what the issue was that caused the war. Moreover, before the drop of the bomb, Japan was already on the verge to surrender.

Varun Iyer

12/1/2019 03:55:42 pm

I do not think that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary in order to stop the war, however, the bombs were necessary to stop the war as soon as possible.

Ameena Farooqui

12/2/2019 09:13:35 am

Harry S. Truman and other officials claimed that the bombs caused Japan to surrender, thereby avoiding a bloody war” The US failed to explore alternatives, also Japan was on the verge of surrendering.

Arabella Cai

12/2/2019 11:54:59 pm

I do not believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary in order to the war. Instead, I believe the Soviet invasion played a major role in terminating the World War II because adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for the Japanese. It is evident that Japan could not defend against great powers attacking from two different directions at the same time. Therefore, I think the dropping of the atomic bomb was definitely not necessary in order to stop the war, rather, the Soviet invasion played a more significant role.

Rohan Das

11/22/2019 10:09:26 pm

What do you think should be the president's primary objective in situation like these? Is it to protect/save as many lives as possible? Is it to protect as many Americans as possible? Or is it to protect the safety of the homeland top priority?

Thien Do

11/22/2019 11:09:21 pm

I believe that the President's primary objective in situations like these is to protect the safety of the homeland and to protect as many Americans as possible. Even though wanting the least casualties from both sides may be a more ethical belief, the President of the US is the leader of the US, not any other nation, and thus he is responsible for us. Not following through with this would make the President very unpopular with the people that he represents.

Seokhee Kim

11/23/2019 01:27:51 pm

I believe that the president's primary objective in situation like these is to protect/save as many lives as possible. Even though protecting the safety of the homeland is important, I believe that saving many human lives is the primary objective any human being should have.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:16:47 pm

I think the priority should be to protect Americans as well as the homeland. A presidents job should be to stand for their country and represent it well and correctly. They would not be doing their job right if they were not protecting their country and citizens.

Dhruv Joshi

11/25/2019 07:12:19 pm

The president's main goal in these types of situation is to lead and protect his own people, first and foremost. Despite the moral/ethical issues of actions taken with other nations, his primary duty is to look out for the interests of his own country, and through any necessary means possible.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:31:50 pm

A president’s number one duty is to protect the people at all cost. The title of a president is to reside over the people of its country and to protect them because a president is no one with ought their subjects. The president probably did bring into consideration the lives of all people, but again it falls down to the president’s duty to their people being the ultimate priority.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 10:43:19 am

I think the primary objective is to keep the safety of the homeland top priority because I believe the protection of the homeland's safety not only includes protecting the government, but protecting people's lives as well. Without homeland safety, regardless of how many people's lives are saved, they won't have a country to call their own if the homeland is destroyed. And what is a life without being able to say where you are from due to destruction of where you once came from?

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

12/2/2019 09:06:58 pm

I think that question depends on whether the war is a total war or hasn't reached that extent. I think the most important thing, personally, is to keep civilians out of war casualties.

Thien Do

11/22/2019 11:23:46 pm

The excerpts mentioned the Japanese "Peace Feelers" a couple of times and how they were very unsuccessful to what they were doing. In fact, many believed that the "Peace Feelers" were there to divert their attention from fully confronting Japan with all of their might. A lot of propaganda was used in order to place the American public against the Japanese, and this caused many Americans after the war to boycott Japanese American shops and even mistreat them. Do you believe that public perception of Japanese Americans played a role in the dropping of the atomic bomb?

Taralyn Neri

11/23/2019 02:39:17 pm

In many points in history, the normal public has rose up in numerous ways for things they may not particularly believe in- it's happened several times for different wars throughout the US' history. If the public had a problem with the bombs, they could have most definitely fought against it, and they may have actually won that battle. However, because of the amount of propaganda that painted the Japanese as almost inhuman, as beasts and monsters and other things to that extent, I believe that the US stopped seeing them as entirely human, and therefore wasn't completely against the idea of bombing them. So yes, had propaganda and other forms of publicity not depicted Japanese in the way they had during WW2, the public may have had more of a problem with the bombing and it would most likely have played a role in the actual dropping of the bomb.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:28:02 pm

The decision of the atomic bomb to be dropped was by the government. The government is supposed to be a reflection of the public’s views and ideals. The propaganda that was implemented showed the people had a great hatred to the Japanese because they thought, even the ones who were citizens of the US, to be spies and pagans who sought to destroy all of the US with no remorse. By having the public in such fears of Japan, the government took their fears into consideration. The dropping of the atomic bomb was meant to destroy Japan in its fortitude and make them weak. By making Japan so weak, the American populace would feel safe.

Jake Park-Walters

11/23/2019 10:36:25 am

Could it be argued that the destruction and ultimate surrender caused by the atomic weapons was justified as Japan is now a prosperous global power?

Taralyn Neri

11/23/2019 02:12:34 pm

I think that's a hard question to answer, as we have no way of knowing what would happened had Japan not surrendered. Despite this, I don't believe Japan wouldn't be a prosperous global power now if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped and they hadn't surrendered. If anything, they may be more powerful now, had they not surrendered. So no, I don't think we can use Japan's later prosperity as justification for the atomic bombs, as they may have been better off or exactly the same without it.

Cynthia Yan

11/23/2019 08:45:41 pm

I would disagree that Japan's current prosperity justifies the United States's decision to use atomic bombs on them. The primary motive behind using nuclear weapons was based on American interests - to end World War II with an American victory, and other reasons that people propose such as to threaten the Soviet Union and save American lives are based on the good of the US. Moreover, with the US's defeat of Japan, they were able to justify their involvement in rebuilding efforts and recreate Japan in the American vision, heavily westernizing the country. The United States' motives were never to make Japan a prosperous global power, and as Taralyn said, it's difficult to determine whether Japan would've become this successful without American influence.

Alexander Neiberger

11/25/2019 10:13:15 am

No, I don't think that Japan having atomic bombs dropped on it or surrendering in WWII led to them becoming a prosperous global power. The United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan because it was in their best interest not to lose more US soldiers in an invasion of Japan. Japan would probably be an even larger global power today if atomic weapons were not used because they could have possibly fended off a US invasion and maintained their land gains such as those in Manchuria, countries South East Asia, and etc.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 01:35:58 pm

In my opinion, no, it's not justified because it's a global power now because many countries have improved their 'power status'. Just because a country is powerful today does not mean it was powerful back then, so whereas it could be possible that maybe Japan to support themselves now, we can't use this fact and try to translate it into the past. If you're implying that instead it was the atomic weapons that helped advance their country to become a global power and that's why it should be justified, I think that's something that we can't connect either because yes, the weapons could have been a part of them becoming a power, but we don't know what kind of country Japan would be if America didn't bomb them, so its hard to make that sort of conclusion.

Taralyn Neri

11/23/2019 02:14:51 pm

In the class discussion, we talked about what would we have done if we hadn't dropped the atomic bomb, and what the outcomes of these other alternatives would have been. However, we didn't entirely discuss what would have happened if after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan didn't surrender. It was said that "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" were two of eight prototype bombs we had created, so do you think that if Japan hadn't surrendered after the second bomb the US would have continued bombing them, or would they have tried to come up with a different solution?

Benson Chen

11/23/2019 08:35:00 pm

Had Japan not surrendered, I think it was probable that US will keep bombing them, at least two more times, as the article said that US had laid out two additional targets had it been necessary. It was also evident that US had the determination to drop two more bombs. Between the dropping of the first and second bomb, US only gave three days for Japan to decide before dropping another bomb in Nagasaki. This signified that US was intentional in showing Japan strength with at least the first two bombs.

Annie Hu

11/25/2019 08:01:11 pm

I think that if Japan had not surrendered after the first 2 bombs, the United States seriously would have reconsidered dropping the other bombs because the first 2 were also for experimental purposes. And after learning the destruction that the atomic bomb would cause, there would be a little more information to consider before dropping the other bombs.

Taralyn Neri

11/23/2019 02:26:09 pm

Obviously, there is some sort of bias in both articles, as the one that is pro-bomb is written by an american man and the anti-bomb article is written by a Japanese man, but how much do you believe their point of views affected the article? Does it make anything they say incorrect or do they just put a spotlight on the parts that they agree with?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/23/2019 06:39:16 pm

Honestly, I think we all have our own types of bias based on our unique experiences and knowledge. It's almost impossible to become introduced to any sort of issue without bias, but I think that both of the authors of the documents did an excellent job considering both sides and supporting or refuting them appropriately. They might be more likely to take a certain side based on their backgrounds, but they both used plentiful evidence to support their sides. I thought it was especially significant how Hasegawa included that last section about the legacy of the bombs and emphasized how the blame should be placed on both sides.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 01:47:10 pm

I think that, especially with the anti-bomb article, perspective brought in a lot of bias. The author of the aforementioned article was 5 when the bombs landed, so he had a first-hand look into how the bombs affected Japan. It was most likely that perspective that influenced his opinion, especially after seeing all the destruction at such a young age.

Nadiya Patel

11/30/2019 04:57:19 pm

Whenever anyone writes I think they bring in some bias from their own backgrounds, but I do not believe that it makes anyone's perspective incorrect. Even though Hasegawa was born in Tokyo and went to school there, he still takes a unique look into the different situations that could have taken place had America not dropped the atomic bombs. He also gave some of the blame for the atomic bombs to Japan. In addition, Maddox was born in America and that may have been why he took the perspective that he did, but he provided a plentiful amount of evidence to back up his view.

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/23/2019 06:08:41 pm

Maddox emphasizes the lack of knowledge about atomic bombs several times throughout the document. Especially considering our current knowledge of the lasting effects that the bombs had, how can we view this issue without the bias of presentism?

Sharayu Gugnani

11/24/2019 11:04:20 am

It is impossible to view this issue without the bias of presentism. In fact, we should look at it with that bias. With what we know now, we can better judge this issue and can grow as a country from it.

Christian Lauchengco

11/24/2019 08:19:11 pm

We can view this issue without the bias of presentism by only considering the knowledge that was available to all of the leaders at the time. For example, nowadays we know that the radiation from an atomic weapon lingers at the site for a very long time. However, back then they did not have such an expansive understanding of the afteraffects of atomic weapons. Therefore, considering this information in the scope of the argument could lead to presentism.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:22:47 pm

To view this issue without the bias of presentism, one must view all of history as a series of actions to combat the unknown. All wars are fought for the knowledge that if they do not, their entire world could be lost and destroyed, which is an unknown possibility. The US felt the need to drop the atomic bomb because they feared Japan and what destruction they could inflict if the war went on and on, which is again an unknown possibility. The issue was handled with what knowledge they had at the time, so one must remember that all issues are handled with consideration to the unknown and because of the unknown.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 06:09:05 pm

Based on previous discussion about Genocide, Do you think that the use of Atomic bomb to end the war goes under the category of genocide under its definition from our previous discussion?
In what ways if so?

Seokhee Kim

11/23/2019 08:24:28 pm

I wouldn't put the dropping of Atomic bomb under the category of genocide, because genocide is a deliberate destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. In this case, they were only dropping the bomb in order to end the war and that they were not aiming against a certain group of people.

Benson Chen

11/23/2019 08:40:36 pm

I do not believe that the employment of atomic bomb should be placed under the category of genocide. As we have discussed, for an act to be considered genocide, the intention behind it plays a big factor. If an act were to be considered genocide, it had to be against a specific group of people. However, the nature of atomic bomb is indiscriminately killing anything within a certain radius, which contradicts the nature of genocide. Therefore, even though the atomic bomb was dropped in Japan, with the knowledge that a large number of Japanese will be killed, it was dropped without the sole purpose that a large number of Japanese be killed.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 10:38:33 am

I don't think that America's use of the atomic bomb can be termed genocide. The definition of genocide is, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Although the target was the Japanese, it was an act of war. Not to just kill people for fun.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 01:57:21 pm

Genocide is the deliberate killing of a race and a bomb kills thousands of people. On the aspect of people dead and the intention of the bomb alone, an atomic bomb can't be genocide. Now if someone used a bomb to kill a specific race then it would be genocide, but in the case of the war, it was a way to force the Japanese to surrender, not kill them all.

Taewan Park

11/23/2019 06:09:34 pm

What do you think was the primary reason for America’s motivation to use the atomic bomb against Japanese? Do you think that the internment of Japanese and previous sentiments against Japanese played subjective role in the motivation?

Seokhee Kim

11/23/2019 08:21:17 pm

I believe that the primary reason for America's motivation to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese was to prevent further casualties on both sides. As Truman said in his memoir that the bombing was to protect 500,000 American causalities which is an estimated guess but still a lot to consider.

Elizabeth Jackson

11/24/2019 07:12:41 pm

Though one reason for America to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese was to prevent further casualties on both sides, the previous American sentiments toward the Japanese can also be considered. In the second article, Hasegawa explains how Truman believed that "America should avenge the humiliation of Pearl Harbor." This idea of American revenge against Japan could have played a role in using the atomic bomb against the Japanese.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 10:34:55 am

I think that America's primary reason for dropping the atomic bomb was to protect democracy as well as to protect American lives. The United States wanted to protect the world from communism, which prompted them to interfere with Asia. The first article also said that bombing the Japanese ultimately saved 500,000 American lives. American involvement in Japan primarily occurred due to the best benefit of Americans.

Jane Cho

11/29/2019 02:05:00 am

I believe that the primary reason for America to use the atomic bomb was in order to prevent Japan from invading more countries and the world as well as to end the war quickly. If the atomic bomb wasn't used, the war would be much longer which could of resulted in a lot more casualties in the long run with more deaths of civilians and soldiers.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 08:11:43 pm

The United States had the motive to bomb Japan and ask for their surrender. Moreover, it also had to make decisions in a hast because of the perceived deadline. Even though, the bombing of Hiroshima did urge the Japanese officials and the emperor to fasten up their peace negotiations or to find an alternative, it still did not urge them to accept the Potsdam terms of unconditional surrender.

Arabella Cai

12/3/2019 12:00:54 am

I personally believe the main reason given for America's decision to take atomic action is that it was a way to conclude the war without suffering further losses, at least on the American side. Additionally, I think dropping the atomic bombs also acted as retribution for Pearl Harbor and the many American lives lost in the bloody warfare with Japan.

Benson Chen

11/23/2019 08:42:27 pm

How much does the second excerpt’s claim that he “explored some counterfactual supposition” affect its validity.

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 03:11:38 pm

Instead of simply claiming that there were other options, the author of the second article genuinely elaborates on what those actions were and what the outcome of them could have been. It's because he explains these options that gives the reader a better perspective on what he means and further proves his point, making it more trustworthy.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:06:02 pm

“I have to decide Japanese strategy—shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I’ll make it when I have all the facts.”
This is a very valuable quote because it shows how Truman had hesitancy towards the bomb dropping. It shows that he needed to have all the facts before he ordered this hard decision. Some may argue that Truman thought through this process heavily, so he should not be put to blame for the horror that occured.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:07:20 pm

“By any rational calculation Japan was a beaten nation by the summer of 1945. Conventional bombing had reduced many of its cities to rubble, blockade had strangled its importation of vitally needed materials, and its navy had sustained such heavy losses as to be powerless to interfere with the invasion everyone knew was coming."
This quote shows the impacts that the bomb had on the people. it describes how many of the Cities turned into rubble and chaos. It seemed that the Japanese were powerless after the bombing. Some may argue that the bombing of Japan was unjust due to the heavy impacts left on Japan. What is your take on this?

Christian Lauchengco

11/24/2019 08:10:37 pm

I believe that this quote is not really referring to the effect of the Atomic Bombs on Japan, but that it is instead referring to the impact of conventional warfare on Japanese society directly before the impact of the atomic bomb. Furthermore, Japan may have been losing the war, but many of its leaders were still devoted to defending Japan. Japanese policy makers had created, ""The fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War,’ which pledged to ‘prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to uphold the national polity, protect the imperial land, and accomplish the objectives for which we went to war.’” The Japanese also still had hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready to defend the home islands. Therefore I don't believe they were powerless.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:12:38 pm

Do you think the decision truly lied with Truman?
I believe so, he had the most influence over the descision, while other people had some impact he had the most. "Marshall reported that the chiefs, supported by the Pacific commanders Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, agreed that an invasion of Kyushu “appears to be the least costly worthwhile operation following Okinawa.” This quote shows how there was other influences affecting the bombing but ultimately Truman was the most impactful figure present.

Connor Lauchengco

12/2/2019 11:09:26 am

As commander in chief yes the decision lied wholly with Truman. He could only be advised by his staff on the most optimal route to take to end the war.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:14:37 pm

For what reasons do you think that Truman hesitated on ordering the bomb dropping? We saw this hesitancy in the reading, it said he needed all the facts before he would go on with the plan.

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 11:24:25 am

If it's helpful, the quote you're talking about is; "I have to decide Japanese strategy- shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I’ll make it when I have all the facts.” I'm choosing to look at his hesitance from a morality stand point. Although most of the public didn't see the Japanese has human due to propaganda, I believe Truman most likely didn't share the same sentiment, and didn't want to kill so many innocent people in Japan, even if they were his enemy. This is shown in the quote from the first article which says; "He wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped “we would never have to use such a thing against the enemy". Despite this, he still made the call because it would save so many American lives, and when it truly comes down to it, that's what is important to the president, keeping the people he's supposed to look out for safe. (Which is said in the lines; “In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives. Other officials mentioned the same or even higher figures.”)

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 07:23:04 pm

In the second article, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa stated, “Despite the myth that he said he did not care what happened to him personally, it is likely that he was also in fact deeply concerned about the safety of his family and his own security.” This quote proves that Truman’s intentions were not to wipe out a race or kill people, instead that he had his own personal reasons to make the decisions that he did even after contemplating other alternatives. Truman’s reasons to use the bomb were only for military reasons and it worked out perfectly is another reason to believe so. Moreover, it was also mentioned in the article that another reason that Truman made the decision that he did war because he wanted to avenge the Japanese for the bombardment of Pearl Harbor.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:26:12 pm

I would like to ask, what do you think would be different today if this bomb dropping never occurred? “But what if things had been different? Would the outcome have changed if the key players had taken alternative paths?” This is important to understand because it makes us think, what would have happened if we didn't drop the bomb? Would we have the freedom we have now?

Kingston Hill

12/2/2019 09:40:37 pm

I don't believe the US not dropping the bombs would affect the US per say but I do think things would be different in Japan for sure. The only way I can see it affecting the US is it could slow the process of the US being thrust into the global spotlight and being looked at as an international powerhouse but in the end I feel we would've reach the same place whether we dropped the bombs or not.

Nishka Mathew

12/10/2019 12:14:22 am

I think that the effects of the atomic bomb wouldn’t be as known today if the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn’t occurred. The wariness and fear that is incited when mentioning atomic bombs may be less prominent because we hadn’t seen a direct example of the effects. Another possibility would be changes in the Cold War due to the bombing never happening. I think the US wouldn’t be changed as much because we would have still won WWII.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:27:11 pm

It is argued that the US dropped this bomb to solve problems, do you believe the bomb caused more problems or erased problems? “The atomic bomb provided them with the solution to previously unsolvable dilemmas.”

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 11:16:55 am

It depends on whose point of view you're looking at. For the US, there were very little repercussions for the bombing, except that the Japanese surrendered. For the Japanese, who lost roughly around 200,000 people due to the actual bombing, acid rain, radiation, fires, collapsing buildings, and other horrible acts that caused death, it caused many more problems and forced them to surrender. (However, we did say in the discussion that the radiation levels of the cities was not actually extremely higher than normal after a month or two, so the radiation didn't have that big of an impact as other aspects of the bombing might have had.)

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 08:13:13 am

For the United States, the bomb erased problems. The war was able to end soon after the bombs and it seemed like a victory for the United States. For Japan, the bomb caused more problems. Japan now had to care for it's innocent civilians that were injured in the bombs and they had to rebuild their cities. Overall, the United States acted in their best benefit.

Krista Lang

11/25/2019 10:45:08 am

I think the bomb created more problems because other countries began to obtain atomic weapons, especially during the cold war. These weapons made our relations with other countries, such as the soviet union very tense at times. Not to mention, the world was at the brink of nuclear warfare during the cuban missile crisis. This would have never happened if the knowledge of atomic weapons hadn't spread so much after the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan.

Kailynn Roberts

11/29/2019 12:16:00 pm

If the bombs had not been dropped on Japan, then I believe we would have had some final, desperate attack implemented by the Japanese that would have spurred us to then retaliate with an attack like that of the atomic bombs. The events of D-Day still would have played out, which destroyed the main power of the Axis, Germany. With having the head of the snake being cut off, the other Axis powers would fall to the Allies. Japan and Italy would both fall into accordance with the terms the Allies would implant. The only thing that I largely feel would be different would have been the handling of the Japanese and Italian governments and territories. I feel that Japan and Italy would be sectioned off with different governments like they did with Germany.

Jane Cho

11/29/2019 01:35:33 pm

I believe that it both caused more problems and erased problems. The atomic bomb erased the threat of Japan invading the rest of the world and helped shortened the length of the war. It also erased problems for the US, allowing the US to win the war. However, it raised risks to other countries with the threat of an atomic bomb possibly being placed on them and possibly increased tensions between different countries and nations. It also caused problems such as radiation threats to the world and countries near Japan such as South Korea.

Clare Whittelsey

11/23/2019 09:28:41 pm

What do you think would have happened if Japan surrendered before Nov 1? “Without the atomic bombs and without the Soviet entry into the war, would Japan have surrendered before November 1, the day Operation Olympic was scheduled to begin?”

Isha Parikh

11/25/2019 05:49:44 pm

I don't think the U.S. would've dropped the bombs if Japan surrendered on their terms. In the first article is says how Japan was already losing the war and was most probably going to surrender but the U.S. wanted them to surrender and give in to their ideals. Part of the reason the U.S. dropped the bomb was to make the Japanese surrender forcefully so Japan would have to do it on American terms.

Aditya Tripathi

11/25/2019 05:50:35 pm

I think they were froced to surrender either as Stalin would've invaded. Plus, the Japanese had a long standing conflict with neighboring Russia over territory and if they lost territory to the Soviet Union, they were not likely to get it back. They were not prepared to fight off an invasion from the Soviet Union, which quickly overran Japan's territory on the mainland. So it was better to surrender to the U.S. than to let Stalin invade.

Aditya Tripathi

11/25/2019 05:51:11 pm

*forced

Aryaman Bana

11/23/2019 11:55:42 pm

What impact do you think the dropping of the atomic bomb had on the future of America and the world? How would our role in the worldview today be different if the bomb wasn't dropped?

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 11:13:35 am

I believe the US dropping the bombs was one of the pinnacle moments where the rest of the world truly saw how much of a threat the US could be if they so wished. They were no longer a young country still figuring things out, but a somewhat global super power who was not to be messed with. This changed relations, naturally, that the US had with other countries and most likely still impacts our relations with them today.

Isha Parikh

11/25/2019 05:53:15 pm

I believe that the dropping of the bomb was somewhat a display of America's power. I think it also propelled America into the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Today, most major countries have at least a few atomic bombs which I think was partially because of the first atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped.

Sharayu Gugnani

11/24/2019 11:01:36 am

Why do you think that the US was so determined to dethrone the emperor? Was it their way of asserting their whiteness through democracy?

Rushil Sudunagunta

11/24/2019 05:17:04 pm

There were multiple reasons why the United States looked to dethrone the emperor. First of all, the United States was a democracy, and they wanted to spread that form of government. In addition to this, when the US first joined the war under Roosevelt, he stated that the citizens should get to decide their form of government in countries. This went against maintaining the emperor's position which was why the US seemed to be motivated to dethrone the emperor.

Logan Talton

11/24/2019 05:42:00 pm

Democracy definitely had something to do with it. The emperor had a large say on what happened in the government, and the US thought that it would be better if the people got a more equal say in government. I am not sure that it was so much "asserting their whiteness" because there was some pretty serious anti-Japanese propaganda during WWII. It was probably a way to give more people a say in how the country should be run.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 08:04:26 am

I think that the United States saw it as their duty to dethrone the emperor in order to spread and protect democracy. The United States wanted to minimize Soviet influence throughout the world and the fight in Japan was necessary to keep democracy in Asia.

Kimberly Caputo

12/2/2019 09:15:28 pm

I feel as though the united states at that point had such a long and extensive history of trying to expand by any means such as the example of the Native Americans. I do think that some of the motivation was to spread their whiteness, but I do believe that they had the motivation of economic and political power that they wanted to gain in order to better their country as well as to prove to other nations what America is capable of in terms of war.

Siyona Shah

11/24/2019 02:19:31 pm

“Japanese intended to slaughter them if the homeland was invaded. Truman was Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, and he had a duty to the men under his command”

Do you believe that it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end the war?

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 03:03:57 pm

No, I don't believe it was. They overlooked other possibilities that could have forced the Japanese to surrender that didn't involve dropping an atomic bomb on them and killing thousands. Several articles have listed alternatives that could have possibly had the same affect on the Japanese, with some things that are as simple as having a demonstration of the bombs before actually dropping them, waiting for the soviets, or clarifying the Potsdam Deceleration. Had they chosen any one of these other techniques, the Japanese may have still surrendered without the extra bloodshed. No, the bombs were not a necessity.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 07:59:18 am

No, I don't think that dropping atomic bombs was necessary to end the war. Truman claimed that dropping the bomb saved 500,000 American lives but at the time, there was no way to accurately predict that number and it was just merely an educated guess. In the second article, it says that "Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government."

Femi Chiegil

11/24/2019 02:44:02 pm

Though the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were a terrible act of war, do you think it could be considered to be a crime or not? And why?

Taralyn Neri

11/24/2019 03:05:58 pm

It shouldn't be considered a crime. It was horrible, yes, but it was more or less defensive, as the bombing was done to protect American lives. It's like if someone broke into your house, and you're only trying to keep yourself and your family alive by any means necessary. It may be a poor way to handle the situation, undoubtedly, but it is for a good cause that was meant to keep the US as safe as they could make it.

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:23:24 am

When the bombs were dropped, their full effects were not known completely. There was no benchmark for the level of absolute destruction that they would cause. For this reason, I don't believe the dropping of the bombs should be considered a war crime legally. In retrospect, we can believe that the bombs were a war crime, but calling the US war criminals for the dropping of the bombs now would be similar to calling countries that used mustard gas in WWI criminals. The regulations just simply didn't exist.

Soliha Norbekova

11/24/2019 04:48:43 pm

Should the United States government apologize for dropping these bombs? Should we add an amendment to the Constitution where Congress gets to decide to use the bomb? Or should that decision ultimately be decided by military leaders? By civilians?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/24/2019 05:11:47 pm

Personally, I don't think an apology is necessary from just the United States. In Hasegawa's article, there is a section about the legacies that the bombs have left and the effects of them on different countries. All powers committed acts that could demand an apology. We were at war, however, so some actions could be seen as justified in that sense. If the US apologized, the other powers would have to as well.

Logan Talton

11/24/2019 05:33:18 pm

The United States government shouldn't apologize now, that would be silly. Anyway, we invaded after surrender and built up the country in a very American way in terms of culture and the economy. As the bombs go, it seems quite obvious to me that one person or a group of few should not hold that kind of power. Congress votes on stuff way less important stuff (in my opinion) than the dropping of atomic bombs. I think that since the world nuclearized, there will be that threat never to use them, like in The Cold War.

Jane Cho

11/29/2019 01:55:35 am

I don't think that the US should apologize now because it's way too late now and Japan could possibly take it the wrong way. We can't undo the things in the past and it was also considered an act of war is not necessary despite having devastating results and impact on Japan. I don't think that there should be an amendment where congress gets to decide if the bombs are going to be used or not. However, I also believe that that decsion should not be placed and depended on singular military officials or the public (civilians). After the use of the atomic bombs, I believe that how destructive and dangerous it was gave the world a warning sign and that it wouldn't be used in the future.

Logan Talton

11/24/2019 05:27:20 pm

Atomic bombs have not been dropped in an act of war since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you think that the dropping of these bombs prevented any future use of them? What are the chances of atomic bombs being used in the future?

Elizabeth Jackson

11/24/2019 07:25:34 pm

I think the dropping of these bombs showed the severity of using them and how devastating and lasting its effects are. These negative impacts created a warning for future use and there will be more awareness globally of its effects if considering using them in the future.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 07:52:36 am

I think that the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the world the damage they were capable of and considering how much suffering they brought to the Japanese people, they have not been used since because it overall seems immoral. The first article states, "some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism."

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:20:32 am

I do think that dropping the bombs during WWII prevented future use of the bombs. During the Cold War, although the United States and the USSR were both flaunting their nuclear arsenals, neither country actually ever used the bombs on the other. While it is possible that at some point, probably during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that the bombs could have been used, I believe that the devastation caused by the bombs in Japan dissuaded countries from using them in the future. I don't believe that nuclear weapons will be used in the future. Most world powers understand that any modern use of nuclear missiles would devastate the globe and result in a mutually assured destruction.

Krista Lang

11/25/2019 10:40:30 am

I think that the dropping of these bombs increased the use of them. During the cold war, nuclear weapons were further developed and the knowledge behind their technology was being spread to all of the world powers at the time. More countries were acquiring nuclear weapons, and therefore they are more likely to be used at some point.

Semeon Petros

11/26/2019 06:07:16 pm

I think the usage of the atomic bombs in WWII prevented the use of atomic bombs in the future. This was because it showed other countries the power that they had, and the diverse effects that the bombs had on the people and the land. This discouraged other countries from carrying out such atrocity in the future, unless it was seen as the only solution for a country during a time of war.

Devin Bhatt

11/24/2019 05:52:30 pm

Do you think that the Truman administration extensively considered other options before deciding to resort to the atomic bombs? And if so, were the other options worth the risk?

Elizabeth Jackson

11/24/2019 07:33:09 pm

I think they may have considered them briefly, but ultimately decided that the atomic bomb would be the best option. In the second article, Hasegawa says, "The atomic bomb provided them with the solution to previously unsolvable dilemmas. Once the solution was found to square the circle. Truman and Byrnes never deviated from their objectives. An alternative was available, but they chose not to take it. " This shows how Truman was adamant on using the atomic bombs.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 07:43:31 am

I think that the United States looked into other options but ultimately resorted to atomic bombs because it was in the best benefit of the United States. Truman claimed that the bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives.

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:17:24 am

I think that the Truman administration did consider other options before atomic bombs, but these considerations were made very briefly. It is also possible that Truman's top advisors intentionally didn't allow for much room to consider other options in an attempt to test the bombs. We can see this as Truman was not given all of the casualty predictions that he should have been given, and that General MacArthur, one of Truman's military advisers, was eager to see the bombs used in war, not only during WWII, but also during the Korean War through his plan to nuke the entire border of China and Korea to oppress the Chinese military.

Krista Lang

11/25/2019 10:38:16 am

I don't think the other options were worth the risk. Although there is evidence that claims the war could have been won without bombing Japan, Truman could have never known this in the moment. He was doing what was best for Americans at the time. I think there is a lot of hindsight bias when reevaluating what America should have done because we already know the outcome, but Truman didn't know the outcome and did what he had to in order to protect Americans.

Semeon Petros

11/26/2019 06:05:13 pm

I think the Truman administration did not consider other options before dropping the atomic bombs. For Truman, it seemed like an easy solution to the dilemma of ending the war. It was also a means for America to send a message to other countries, exhibiting its power and establishing itself as a global superpower. For these reasons, the Truman administration was sure that the atomic bombs were the best solution.

Lauren Humphlett

11/24/2019 06:30:14 pm

Why do you think Japan didn’t do anything when the leaflets were dropped in Japan to warn of the US attack?

Christian Lauchengco

11/24/2019 08:22:55 pm

I believe that this may have occurred because Japan believed that the leaflets may have just been propaganda meant to harm their war effort. They may have believed that the United States was just trying to get them to slow production or decrease defense in these areas for an allied invasion by moving soldiers and workers out of the area.

Brenna Hanson

11/26/2019 08:09:15 am

I agree with Christian. After doing some research online, here are some additional reasons why the leaflets were not affective:
1. The first leaflets dropped on Hiroshima were vague and did not directly reference the atomic bomb. This is probably because the US itself was unsure of what the scale of the destruction would be.
2. The leaflets dropped on Nagasaki likely did not arrive before the bomb, which didn't give people time to consider the evacuation suggestion.
3. Leaflets had been previously used to warn Japanese cities about conventional bombing raids, so the ones for the atomic bomb were likely not considered out of the ordinary.

One thing to note is apparently there is a lot of uncertainty about the where and when the different leaflets were dropped since a lot of evidence was destroyed by the bomb, so its hard to know for sure why people didn't listen to the order. This means a lot of the info online are educated guesses.

Neha Malkar

12/1/2019 09:21:57 pm

I think Japan didn't do anything when the leaflets were dropped because the leaflets did not seem official and it could have just been to show Japan what the US is capable of. I do not think leaflets falling would be a big enough sign for the government to take action. They could have easily viewed them as propaganda.

Elizabeth Jackson

11/24/2019 07:03:39 pm

Do you believe the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan was rushed?

Ashlyn Dumaw

11/24/2019 07:42:17 pm

I do think that the decision was rushed, but it had to be. President Truman was facing immense pressure to take action and the public was growing more and more dissatisfied with the war as time passed. The US wanted a quick and effective way to end the war and spare as many lives as possible. Especially considering the fact that Japan was mobilizing and sending their troops to a potential invasion site, immediate action was required.

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:12:53 am

While the decision to drop the bombs was rushed, I do feel as though more time could have been taken to evaluate all of the options available. The Manhattan Project was no secret to Truman and his top advisors, and they knew that the effects of a nuclear weapon would be devastating, even if not to what degree. I believe that the bombing was an act of scrambling difusion of the war, but also an excuse for the US to use their new weapon.

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/26/2019 09:21:00 am

I think the decision was rushed. There is evidence to support the theory that Japan would have most likely surrendered within the upcoming months. However, the US was more interested in ending the war quickly rather than peacefully, because President Truman clearly favored the interests of his people over the people of Japan. Dropping the bombs would have saved more Americans and ended the war quicker, and that was higher on Truman's list of priorities, so he rushed the decision to drop the bombs.

Ashley Cao

11/26/2019 09:25:49 am

I feel that at the time, it seemed rushed, but in reality, the US government had made smaller decisions over a longer period of time that narrowed their options down to the bombing. Although these decisions weren't intentionally made to result in the bombing of Japan, it ended up getting rid of a lot of the better options that had been available much earlier on.

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 04:59:25 pm

I don't believe rushed is the correct term, I would say a decision was made with swiftly sure but not rushed. Truman thought about all of the different ways they could get Japan to surrender and made a choice on what he felt was the most efficient and effective way from an American point of view. Sure he was receiving pressure from various sources however I don't believe it clouded his judgment, he wanted a way to quickly end the war and the atomic bombs were the best way to do so.

Neha Malkar

12/1/2019 09:24:11 pm

Yes, I do think the decision to use atomic bombs in Japan was rushed. The public was not happy with the war and was constantly pressurizing the government to end the war. In addition to this, situations with the Soviet Unions were becoming worse. They needed a quick and absolute way to tend the war and this seemed to be the best way at the time. This was also the only way that they saw would save the most American lives. In the articles it said that even after the decision was made Truman was distressed and never fully came to terms with it.

Kimberly Caputo

12/2/2019 09:10:56 pm

One of the quotes from article states that japan and other nations were in talks of peace and the idea of surrender which supports the idea that the bombing was rushed, if America had halted the Bombing I think other actions would have equally effected japan such as the idea that the potential invasions of other nations could occur, I feel as though Japan would have been targeted in any situation but the severity and harshness would have differed.

Teara Anderson

11/24/2019 07:45:22 pm

In my classes discussion, we didn't really touch on the fact that many myths were expressed to the American public during this time. Do you believe that these myths had a large impact on why so many Americans justified the bombing?

Luna Hou

11/24/2019 11:00:00 pm

I definitely think that the way the media portrayed the bombing as well as the war between the U.S. and Japan in general led to the development of various myths about the bombing and had an extremely significant impact on why so many Americans justified it, both at the time and afterwards. More specifically, the texts we read suggested that many Americans adopted a mindset of white superiority towards the Japanese, and after the infamous attack that occurred at Pearl Harbor, revenge also seemed to be in the minds of many citizens; these factors, promoted by various forms of media such as propaganda, most likely made it much easier for the American public to support using violent tactics against the Japanese in order to first and foremost preserve American lives. These conditions also must have made it much easier for Americans to swallow the myth that the bombing was the best decision to make, as it ended the war and preserved lives on both sides, in order to justify the decision years later. The effects of this way of thinking, as the article states, can still be seen today.

Christian Lauchengco

11/24/2019 08:01:48 pm

Throughout the history of warfare, civilians have often suffered due to byproducts of warfare or have been deliberately targeted. Is this inevitable? Is some amount of civilian suffering justifiable as collateral damage during war? If so, where is the line drawn at collateral damage and if not then why is no amount of collateral damage acceptable?

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:09:56 am

In any war, civilians will be inevitably affected to some extent. Whether it be through fear of nuclear holocaust, like in the Cold War, or through actual nuclear holocaust as seen in Japan during WWII, civilian suffering is inevitable. While the morally right answer would be that no civilian suffering is acceptable, in order to make strides in war against an enemy government, their civilians are going to have to be affected in some way. Whether that be through destruction of of morale, economic implosion, or violence on the homefront, civilians have to be affected for either side to gain ground.

Jenna Watson

11/25/2019 07:39:25 am

How do you think the war would have played out if the United States invaded Japan instead of bombing and blockading? Do you think that bombing and blockading was completely necessary?

Luna Hou

11/25/2019 08:46:54 am

If the U.S. had invaded Japan instead of bombing and blockading, I think their military strength would have eventually overcome Japan's, but it would have taken much longer to get them to surrender, at the cost of many lives on both sides. This inference is supported by the texts, as both suggest that the Japanese were relentless in prolonging the war as long as possible despite their losses for a variety of reasons. That being said, while I don't think bombing and blockading was completely necessary for this reason, it was undoubtedly an effective way to quickly end the war and preserve American lives.

Evan Speelman

11/25/2019 10:06:02 am

If the United States had invaded Japan instead of blockading and bombing them, the war would have been extended for much longer than it already had been, as Japan had no intention of surrendering to a US land invasion. However, this is also assuming that no other options for Japanese surrender were made. Without bombing and blockading, there very well might have been another option found at some point, such as the many discussed revolving around the Potsdam Conference in document 2.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/25/2019 10:21:48 pm

I believe that Japan definitely would have taken a much longer time to surrender if they ever even would have. The death count of not only American soldiers, but Japanese soldiers as well, would have been much higher if US had chosen to invade instead of bomb. While I don’t believe that the bombings were moral, I do not think Japan would have surrendered without them.

Kimberly Caputo

12/2/2019 09:06:12 pm

I do think the America would have persevered through the nation, but because that approach is very much a subject of aggression many more American and Japanese lives would have been lost and more American casualties would have taken place. I do think that eventually Japan would have still surrendered but it would have taken more time and energy to accomplish what America wanted from Japan.

Krista Lang

11/25/2019 10:35:24 am

In the document there was a quote that read: "there is no easy bloodless victory to war." Do you believe this quote to be true, especially considering that World War II ended due to many lives being lost?

Isha Parikh

11/25/2019 05:56:31 pm

I agree with that quote. War ends with thousands if not millions of lives lost, especially one as grand as World War II. The choices that Truman was faced with would have ended in loss of life on both sides. I think Truman knew that getting the Japanese to surrender on their terms and minimize loss of American life wouldn't be easy. Looking at most major wars in the past, they all ended with a significant loss of life on both sides.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/25/2019 10:20:13 pm

I agree with that quote. The whole concept of war is people battling to death for their country. There will never be such thing as a bloodless war, so yes I believe this quote to be true.

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/26/2019 09:17:04 am

I agree with this, because I think that to some extent, war by definition includes blood. I think that while a bloodless victory would have been ideal, it would not be considered a war but more of a peaceful resolution.

Siyona Shah

11/27/2019 10:23:01 am

I do believe this quote to be true. This quote is significant because it illustrates that there was no best or fully peaceful way for the war to end. World War II could not have ended without violence; there wasn’t a peaceful way for it to end. Whether the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs or not, whether the U.S. invaded Japan on November 1st, or whether the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria, there was no bloodless way for this war to end.

Javairia Qadir

11/28/2019 01:43:43 pm

I do not really agree with this quote because there is peaceful solutions to war, but people don't want to sacrifice some things for them. Most times leaders are stubborn to have their way which leads to blood and violence. Violence is usually the result of no patience and a situation not thought through thoroughly.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 02:23:53 pm

I do agree with the quote. War ends when one side surrenders and most people would decide to do that when their side losses a lot of soldiers or civilians. Because of this there is usually no end to war besides killing a lot of people from the opposing side to make them was to save their people and the only way to do that is to surrender.

Austin Nguyen

12/1/2019 03:40:23 pm

I believe this quote is true because war is an armed conflict between countries and its unreasonable a side would surrender if none of their people have been affected. One side must have sustained enough losses to feel the need to surrender to the other-blood must be shed in order for results to be made in the context of war.

Lauren Boulia

11/25/2019 01:16:07 pm

Do you believe that if Truman had understood the lasting effects of radiation on the bombing sites and the people who live there currently, do you believe he would have dropped the bomb? Why or why not?

Luna Hou

11/25/2019 02:41:16 pm

I believe that Truman still would have dropped the bomb because the text suggests that his first priority was preserving the lives of the American people and ending the war in the most efficient way possible. Perhaps better understanding the lasting effects of radiation would have motivated the U.S. to drop their atomic bomb(s) on different locations that would have affected less innocent civilians and/or to only drop one atomic bomb rather than two. However, regardless of the side effects of the bomb, it remains the most effective way the U.S. could have forced Japan to surrender at the time, and combined with the prejudice and vengefulness many Americans felt towards the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, I don't think Truman would have given up on the opportunity to end the war as soon as possible with the least loss of American lives.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/25/2019 10:18:46 pm

I think he still would have dropped the bomb even if he knew the long lasting effects. His goal was to get Japan to surrender and the long lasting effects were definitely severe enough for Japanese officials to act. Also, I believe that he must have had some idea of the effects that the nuclear bombs would have on the people long term.

Siyona Shah

11/27/2019 10:21:24 am

I believe that even if Truman had understood the lasting effects of radiation on the bombing sites and the people who live there currently, he would have still dropped the atomic bomb.

"In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives."

Truman was only worried about America getting attacked and he didn't care about the negative repercussions to other places than America.

Allison Charney

11/27/2019 12:55:45 pm

I think that Truman would still have dropped the bombs because he needed a quick way to end the war while still losing as few American men as possible. The lasting effects of radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in Japan were not horrible and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are livable today, so I feel that radiation would not have stopped truman.

Javairia Qadir

11/28/2019 01:39:48 pm

In my opinion Truman would have still dropped the bomb because they were desperate to stop war and just have some sort of peace. The U.S. wanted a full surrender from the Japanese and prevent them from fighting back.

Crystal Gayle

12/2/2019 08:08:54 pm

I think that Truman would have still dropped the bombs as the reason for them was more to save American soldiers lives and to end the war as fast as possible.

Logan

12/9/2019 10:06:13 am

In retrospect, the idea of dropping the atomic bombs could have been more scrutinized based on the complete destruction created. I think that Truman was not worried about the affects the bomb would have on the bombing sites though, as his main concern was ending the war and protecting the United States.

Isha Parikh

11/25/2019 06:00:56 pm

In the first article, the author brings up a number of "myths" about Truman's decision to drop the bomb such as the myth that many of Truman's advisors told him that dropping the bomb wasn't a good idea. The author later refutes the idea and explains why it's false. Why do you think people made up these "myths"? Do you think it was because of a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to go against Truman's decision.

Annie Hu

11/25/2019 08:07:39 pm

I think that part of these myths about Truman's advisors going against dropping the bomb was to show that there was some opposition to the bomb after the general public realized how horrific the bomb was. This way, the United States wouldn't be seen as unanimously making the decision for such a terrible event.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/25/2019 10:16:08 pm

I think some people definitely were against Truman’s decision to drop the bombs. Of course something as big and intense as a nuclear bomb could not go without any form or doubt or opposition. I think many people questioned whether the severity of the nuclear bombs was just or necessary, and many probably found it immoral.

Michael Herrera

11/29/2019 02:58:05 pm

It seems to me that these myths were made up to discredit Truman and place the blame on him. I'm sure that some people did disagree, but the author disputes this claim by saying that the "myths' were false and had o basis to them. I'm sure that after the bombs were dropped, many of Truman's advisers realized what a mistake they had made after seeing people's reactions to it, so they attempted to minimize the damage by placing it on one person.

Jessica Xia

12/1/2019 01:57:21 pm

I think these myths were made up to go against Truman's decision because they wanted to make him seem unreliable and untrustworthy. I think they wanted to put the blame on Truman.

Aditya Tripathi

11/25/2019 06:30:45 pm

What were some of the political/economic repercussions of dropping the bomb for both the US and Japan? How did both nations eventually become allies with one another after such a catastrophic event?

Dhruv Joshi

11/25/2019 07:28:19 pm

These changes took place mostly for the Japanese. They faced major reforms in the political arena, notably with their changes from an absolute monarchy with direct emperor rule, to a constitutional monarchy with limited power from the emperor. They were also subject to numerous economic reforms, specifically the rapid growth of the economy, not only due to internal wars, but also because of US aid and different military engagements (Korean war). Today, US and Japan relations are strong due to the US aid/reforms of Japan after the war, leading to our strong political and economic ties.

Leo Cheng

11/27/2019 09:02:22 am

After Japan surrendered America helped Japan rebuild while implementing a different form of government. America closely tied its own economy with the Japanese economy, introducing many western concepts that made their economy more dependent on the American economy. This led to a mutually beneficial relationship, causing these two countries to become allies.

Allison Charney

11/27/2019 12:52:24 pm

After the dropping of the atomic bombs America and Japan became allies because American supplied money to help protect Japan from communist threats from the USSR. America also supplied money and men to help with reconstruction after the end of WWII.

Dhruv Joshi

11/25/2019 07:08:21 pm

How much of a role do you think internment camps and negative Japanese stereotypes, such as the cartoons drawn by Dr. Seuss, played in our dropping of the atomic bomb?

Ashley Cao

11/26/2019 09:20:06 am

I definitely think that negative views of Japanese by the US government and public played a big role in terms of acceptance and support of dropping the bombs. I think that if history of hatred towards the Japanese didn't exist, many more Americans would have not supported the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Alexander Neiberger

11/26/2019 10:24:04 am

I think that those factors definitely increased support for dropping the atomic bombs. I have a quote from Maddox's article that says, “Wartime propaganda had encouraged Americans to regard Hirohito as no less a war criminal than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini.”. So, propaganda along with portraying the Japanese and Japanese-Americans negatively led people to distrust them. I still think a more important factor though was the potentially significant loss of life that would result in a land invasion of Japan.

Semeon Petros

11/26/2019 06:01:29 pm

I think the overall portrayal of the Japanese made it easier for the American people to support the dropping of the atomic bombs. Internment camps and their initiation were wrong on the part of government, but the lasting effect that it had was that it made Americans uneasy an wary of the threat that the Japanese posed on the country. Negative Japanese stereotypes, as supported in Dr Seuss' cartoons, also contributed to this. In his cartoons, Dr Seuss portrayed the Japanese and Germans as sub-human, causing hatred towards them. This also helped gain supporters of a quick victory against the Japanese.

Siyona Shah

11/27/2019 10:16:30 am

I think internment camps and negative Japanese stereotypes, such as the cartoons drawn by Dr. Seuss, played a major role in the US dropping the atomic bomb.

"Regardless of the emperor's actual role in Japanese aggression, which is still debated, much wartime propaganda had encouraged Americans to regard Hirohito as no less a war criminal than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini."

I believe that the negative Japanese stereotypes played a huge role in dropping the atomic bomb because Americans already were viewing the Japanese as their enemies

Allison Charney

11/27/2019 12:48:31 pm

I think that the negative stereotypes of Japanese peoples that were prevalent throughout American culture definitely had an impact on the dropping of the atomic bombs. Although these cartoons were not the reasons for the dropping of the bombs, they certainly had an impact on the public’s support of the bombs.

Javairia Qadir

11/28/2019 01:34:59 pm

I think that the internment affected American's image of the Japanese making them look heartless, savage, and their enemy. Cartoons and propaganda enhanced these images further and was one of the reasons why some citizens supported the drop of the two bombs. But the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent and not at all like they pictured.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

12/13/2019 05:42:19 pm

I believe that internment camps and negative Japanese stereotypes didn't necessarily play a part in the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but had more to do with acceptance and support of dropping the bombs. The negative outlook on Japanese and its widespread in popular culture in cartoons by Dr. Seuss made it easier to justify and explain to the public the reason of dropping the bombs.

Juhi Chatterjee

11/25/2019 10:14:08 pm

Some historians believe that the first bomb may have been necessary in order to get Japan to surrender. Do you believe that the second bomb was necessary?

Aditya Tripathi

11/25/2019 11:26:14 pm

I think it was necessary but the case could be made that there was a possibility that the U.S. could have had Japan surrender in early-mid 1945, without the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs. But the U.S. was not willing to negotiate at that time.

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/26/2019 09:14:27 am

I don't think it was necessary for the second bomb to be dropped, but there is no way to confirm that. I think if we hadn't dropped the second bomb, Japan definitely would have taken longer to surrender, which is what the US was trying to avoid at the time. In other words, in order to achieve US goals, the second bomb was necessary.

Liz Aman

11/26/2019 12:41:25 pm

I think the second atomic bomb was necessary in order to ensure Japanese surrender. After the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese minister of war refused to even admit that the bomb was atomic and did not accept the United State's conditions for surrender. However, after the second bomb they recognized America's militaristic power and accepted unconditional surrender. A few hours after the bombing of Nagasaki the Japanese minister of war stated, "the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs... they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo."

Javairia Qadir

11/28/2019 01:24:06 pm

I personally think that the second bomb was unnecessary because Japan saw the affects of the first bomb and how much long term damage it caused. Although the U.S wanted to ensure a surrender, in the second document it mentions that Japan was ready to surrender after the first bomb.

Regan Glass

11/28/2019 08:48:41 pm

In my opinion the second bomb definitely was not necessary. So many innocent civilians died during the first bombing, while the second one did not have a purpose. America was able to show its power and ability because of the effects of the first bomb, while the second bomb was really just to secure power. It was unnecessary and unfair to the Japanese people who innocently died.

Michael Herrera

11/29/2019 11:59:50 am

Although I do understand why some historians agree with dropping the first bomb to make sure that they surrendered, I don't feel that dropping either of the bombs was necessary whatsoever. Yes, the angle of forcing to them to surrender because they were planning an invasion is valid, but was it necessary to drop an atomic bomb? Especially since we didn't even attack troops with those bombs, we bombed cities with innocent civilians in them, people who had nothing to do with the war.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 02:18:05 pm

I don't thin that it was necessary but it would speed of the process of Japan surrendering. If the second bomb was not dropped it is certain that Japan would have taken longer to surrender which is what the U.S was trying to not have then. The second bomb was not necessary but it would make Japan surrender faster.

Crystal Gayle

12/2/2019 07:09:19 pm

I believe that the second bomb was necessary to confirm Japan's surrender as Japan's willingness to finish the war no matter how many of their soldiers died was still an issue at hand and the first bombing could have been ignored by them, leading to a prolonged war and even more losses on both sides.

Logan Siege

12/9/2019 10:08:07 am

I believe the second bomb could have been necessary, but the United States should have waited longer than 3 days. The US should have let Japan assess the damage better before sending another atomic bomb, but if Japan still resisted I can see the reasoning for using the second bomb.

Marta Chojkiewicz

11/26/2019 09:07:48 am

One of the main ideas in the second article is that it will never be completely clear as to why Japan surrendered. Do you agree with this or do you think there is an obvious reason?

Ashley Cao

11/26/2019 09:22:27 am

i think that we can make a good assumption as to why the Japanese surrendered, but we'll never know for sure. I think that the Japanese had slowly worn themselves down throughout the war, and probably would've surrendered eventually, but the dropping of the atomic bombs really destroyed them. after the bombings, japan didn't have a choice but to save the rest of their soldiers and surrender.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 02:13:41 pm

We'll never really know why the Japanese surrendered. Through the war I think Japan was slowly losing but once the bombs were dropped the Japanese didn't have the kind technology to fightback with the United States and they wanted to try and save the rest of their soldiers and citizens so they decided to surrender.

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 11:49:35 am

The article does identify some factors that caused Japan to surrender, but never acknowledged all of them. It says, "the emperor referred to both the atomic bomb and Soviet entry into the war as the decisive reasons for ending the war." But there were other factors that are debated to also have an impact on the Japanese decision to surrender.

Ashley Cao

11/26/2019 09:17:49 am

One point of view that many people accept is that the bombings on japan were revenge for Pearl Harbor. On terms of getting even though, Japan aimed for a naval base and its ships, so it bombing two cities full of innocent people (including children and women) really equal revenge or was revenge an excuse for ulterior motives?

Leo Cheng

11/27/2019 09:04:47 am

I don't think that this was a main motive in utilizing the atomic bombs against Japan, but if it was I would not think it was justified. Based on my understanding, most Americans at the time believed that using the atomic bombs would help save American lives in a potentially extremely costly land invasion, and using the bombs would help end the war faster.

Amay Patel

11/28/2019 03:00:13 pm

I think that the whole "revenge for pearl harbor" was less of an actual reason and was just used as a justification for the atomic bombing.

Jessica Xia

12/1/2019 01:59:53 pm

If getting revenge was the main motive, then it was not equal revenge. I think it was just an excuse the justify the bombing of Japan. I think the U.S just wanted to end the war quickly.

Crystal Gayle

12/2/2019 07:18:21 pm

I believe that some people may have thought of the bombings as revenge for Pearl Harbor. However, I do not think that it was reasonable as a "revenge act" as many innocent Japanese citizens were hurt, killed and were still being affected by the atomic bombs after their launchings.

Semeon Petros

11/26/2019 05:45:40 pm

Has the decision to use the highly destructive atomic bombs affected how other countries viewed the United States? Did any countries begin to think differently about the US and its capabilities?

Leo Cheng

11/27/2019 09:06:22 am

I think that using the atomic bombs showcased to the world that America is a global superpower, but the event is viewed mostly in a negative light.

Liz Aman

11/27/2019 02:17:28 pm

I think the use of the atomic bomb made a significant impact on how other countries viewed the United States. The atomic bomb made the United States the military superpower it still is today. This provoked the Cold War and essentially led to the nuclear arms race. The atomic bomb also ensured that much of Europe would rely on the United States for protection after World War ll rather than the Soviet Union.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 02:09:30 pm

After the effect of these bombs were shown, other countries definitely changed their views on the United States because the realize how powerful the weapons they have are. Before these bombs were dropped they were only tested in water which didn't really show the destruction they could cause.

Hadley Seifert

12/1/2019 02:49:23 pm

The decision to use the atomic bombs affected how other countries viewed the United States because they saw the US as being a global superpower. Countries began to think differently about the US and its capabilities because the US was a relatively young country, so with the development of these nuclear weapons countries were able to see how advanced and powerful it really is.

Shazia Muckram

11/26/2019 08:49:14 pm

How do you compare the situation in Iraq today with the bombing of Hiroshima and Japan? What are the similarities or differences between the motives and the outcomes of both of these wars?

Shazia Muckram

11/27/2019 10:11:33 am

*Nagasaki

Nishka Mathew

12/10/2019 12:05:02 am

One similarity could be the motives because many claim that the war in Iraq was spurred on by 9/11 and Iraq having weapons of mass destruction similar to how Pearl Harbor spurred on the bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also believe that due to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many knew of the awful effects of weapons such as these and were scared that Iraq had similar weapons that could be utilized against America.

Leo Cheng

11/27/2019 09:09:33 am

Do you think that the Truman administration would have acted differently if the public opinion towards Japan was not so hostile? Which one of the “roads” that Hasegawa spoke of do you think they would have taken if they decided not to use the atomic bombs?

Era Joshi

11/28/2019 09:10:52 am

While I do agree that the public's hostile view of Japan helped with Truman dropping the bombs, it was mainly Pearl Harbor that caused Truman drop them. America wanted revenge after being made fun of with Pearl Harbor, mainly because their ego was bruised. As a result, America decided the only way to get Japan back was to cause more damage. If America had not dropped the bombs, Japan would have continued to fight in the war and negotiate with the Soviet Union, until being defeated (which according to the second article would only be a year or so).

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:42:09 pm

It could definitely be argued that America was not simply trying to get back at Japan but was acting more out of a fear for the loss of more troops. I think it's unfair to characterize politicians who decided to drop the bomb as whole for being motivated by revenge, although that is a factor that definitely could come into play. While one of the articles has a quote that would totally back up your argument ("Thus this is a story with no heroes but no villains, either -- just men. The ending of the Pacific War was in the last analysis a human drama whose dynamics were determined by the very human characteristics of those involved: ambition, fear, vanity, anger, and prejudice.”), there's no way to say for sure that there would be a DEFINITE outcome as a result of a hypothesis we made today.

Amay Patel

11/28/2019 02:54:42 pm

I think that the atomic bombs would still have been dropped because most of the American public were fearful of the Soviets and they would want the bomb as a display of force.

Jessica Xia

12/1/2019 02:02:16 pm

I still think the bombs would have been dropped, however maybe only one bomb. The war would have still needed a way to end and the bombs, in the eyes of the Truman administration, was the quickest way to end the war.

Austin Nguyen

12/1/2019 03:36:51 pm

I believe that the atomic bombs would most likely still have been dropped on Japan in the end. I believe it wasn't so much as the Truman administration having a hostile opinion of Japan, but more of a desire to end the war as fast as possible and with as few deaths as possible., which is why they dropped the bomb in the end.

Allison Charney

11/27/2019 12:41:26 pm

How did America’s use of political cartoons influence their treatment of the Japanese following the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Liz Aman

11/27/2019 02:27:08 pm

The political cartoons after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor depicted Japanese Americans as disloyal to the United States and a threat to the safety and well-being of Americans. They used racial stereotypes to further convey this message. However, I don't these political cartoons had the greatest impact on the treatment of the Japanese following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In my opinion, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor instigated great fear towards the Japanese. Americans did not know if they could trust Japanese Americans and saw them as an enemy rather than fellow Americans. While the treatment of the Japanese during World War ll was very wrong, I don't think the political cartoons initiated it.

Regan Glass

11/28/2019 08:35:26 pm

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Americans created very racist political cartoons to depict all Japanese, not just some. They commonly had exaggerated facial features like caricatures. Others would show physical abuse or the internment camps that Japanese-Americans had to live in while in the US. This was very unfair because, although America was violently attacked by Japan, not all Japanese citizens became villains in the process. Yet, this is what the cartoons depicted, and caused many Japanese to be treated unfairly.

Jamie Long

12/2/2019 04:59:13 pm

I think that political cartoons had a big effect on public image and treatment of the Japanese and Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. To the public eye, Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack, and it raised a lot of anger and call for action. Most political cartoons were extremely racist and fueled a lot of stereotypes about the Japanese. People consequently became suspicious and part of the "war effort" was influenced by racial tension caused by Pearl Harbor and the following content in the media.

Liz Aman

11/27/2019 02:08:02 pm

Robert James Maddox mentioned that Truman felt it was his duty as president to use every weapon available to save American lives. However, he received much backlash for his decision to use the atomic bomb. If Truman had decided to move forward with the land invasion rather than drop the atomic bombs at the expense of thousands of American lives, how would the American public have responded? Would he have been criticized for not ending the war and saving American lives?

Annabelle Chang

11/27/2019 08:13:47 pm

(I realized after I posted my question that I asked the exact same thing as you, oops)
I think that Truman would've gotten even more flak for not using the bombs because he would've been sacrificing American lives for a war that could've ended much sooner. Of course, Truman was going to get criticism for massive death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it would've at least saved hundreds of thousands of American troops.

Nishka Mathew

12/9/2019 11:50:10 pm

I think at this time many were very much eager for the war to end. If Americans heard that the atomic bomb could have been used to end the war sooner with fewer American casualties, they would have been angered at the decision to not drop the bomb. This is mostly due to the American perception of the Japanese as enemies and against the United States. A majority of Americans would have wanted the worst damage inflicted on Japan to get revenge for Pearl Harbor. If Truman had invaded instead of bombing, Americans at the time would have been much more critical of his decision.

Annabelle Chang

11/27/2019 08:07:12 pm

Truman was under immense pressure to end the war quickly and chose the atomic bomb as the way of doing so. However, the US and Truman got a lot of controversy over using the bomb, the ethics of which are still debated today. Given his position, how do you think people would've reacted if he chose not to use the bomb? Would it have attracted more or less controversy?

Annabelle Chang

11/27/2019 08:14:48 pm

Just ignore this question

Annabelle Chang

11/27/2019 08:16:57 pm

During the class discussion, we talked a lot about the Soviet Union's involvement being a large factor in Japan's surrender. Do you think that the bombs or the Soviet Union/threat of invasion had a bigger impact on the Japan's decision to surrender?

Amay Patel

11/28/2019 02:49:05 pm

I think the Soviet involvement was a larger factor because Japan already suffered worse bombings than the atomic bombs and they still didn't surrender.

Regan Glass

11/28/2019 08:28:55 pm

I believe that the Soviet Union had a larger impact on surrender because America already warned Japan beforehand that atomic weaponry was a possibility and they did not let that stop plans to continue attacks. Japan continued to grow on violent ideas and still planned to have an attack on the US, which luckily slowed with Soviet threats.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 07:15:41 pm

The Americans were trying their best to end the war and at the same time scare the Soviets from capturing other territories. It was not the shock of the atomic bombs that caused the Japanese to surrender, instead it was Soviet’s entry into the war that compelled the Japanese to surrender. The fear of Soviet expansion and influence was way more scarier for the Japanese than the thought of having the cities being bombed or people being killed.

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 12:07:54 pm

I would say the Soviet Union had a bigger impact since it was stated in the second reading that Japan relied significantly on the Soviet Union's neutrality both militarily and diplomatically.

Aiden Hall

12/1/2019 03:42:07 pm

Almost for sure it was the Soviet Union, Japan took one look at what they did to Europe as they rolled through and said "You know what? This whole war thing? Not for me." The Russian advance through Eastern Europe is often called the "Rape of Europe", for obvious reasons. But beyond that, the countries which they passed through saw their governments dismantled and replaced with Soviet Puppets, which would mean the Japanese would loose their all important emperor. Far more preferable was the fairly subdued occupation which they would endure from American forces, in which they would even be able to keep most of their government.

Era Joshi link

11/28/2019 08:35:51 am

As an addition to Annabelle's question, why couldn't the Soviet Union leave the war specifically between Japan and America, what did they gain out of negotiating with and ultimately invading Japan?

Annabelle Chang

11/29/2019 03:02:04 pm

Basically Stalin had agreed to enter war with Japan after Germany was defeated. I don't remember if this was said about the USSR in WWII, but I think the US and the USSR were trying to see who would be the one to make Japan surrender. Ending the war quickly was definitely Truman's priority, but I remember reading some other stuff about how the bombs could've also been a show of power to the USSR, so perhaps it wouldn't be too big of a stretch to say that they wanted to be the ones to end the war.

Javairia Qadir

11/28/2019 01:15:56 pm

We debated about if the bombs should have been dropped or not and how it affects us today. We also discussed Truman's motivation prior to the Pearl harbor attack and if it was based on race. But do you guys think Truman had enough information to actually make the decision, and how do you think it affected him after he saw the aftermath?

Brandon Jeans

11/29/2019 09:36:06 pm

I believe that Truman did have enough information do determine that the Nuclear Bombs had to be dropped. Through ULTRA it was predicted that around 394,859 American soldiers, not even including the Japanese soldiers. With this information alone it can be determined that, while somewhat dark, many less lives would be lost in comparison if the Nuclear Bombs were dropped. While some information was later revealed from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, that Japan would have surrendered by November 1st. Information like this was not available at the time and everything seemed to point to dropping the bombs being a good idea. While the decision was a difficult one, I believe that Truman would believe he would have made the right decision as he was able to send the most amount of American soldiers back home.

Aiden Hall

12/1/2019 03:37:57 pm

Generally speaking, he had the bare minimum information to make a decent decision on the dropping of the atomic bombs. He knew the general disposition of Japanese politics, he knew that the casualties from the bombs would be lower than an invasion no matter what, and he knew that the bombs were devastating enough to cause at least peace talks if not an outright surrender. These were more than enough to allow him to make a decision, even if the details of Japanese disposition were completely unknown.

Annabelle Chang

12/2/2019 10:40:37 am

He may or may not have had all the information, but I think he had enough to make a decision. I think that he weighed his options and decided that, as Brandon was saying, using the bombs would've saved far more American lives, which would've been his top priority. While the estimated casualties of an invasion vary, I think that it was fairly obvious to Truman that if he dropped the bomb, there was a higher chance of Japan surrendering before invasion. While numerous sources say that Japan likely would've surrendered before Nov. 1 without the bomb, the bomb definitely sped up the decision. I read somewhere that the Japanese were considering surrender because of the Soviet invasion, but found it less embarrassing to say that they surrendered because of a "miracle weapon."

Amay Patel

11/28/2019 02:40:34 pm

Most of us agreed that dropping the bomb was not necessary, but during the war did the immediate concerns of soviet aggression and loss of American lives justify the decision?

Sharan Sivakumar

12/1/2019 09:57:46 am

Honestly, I believe that the immediate concern of the loss of American lives did justify the decision because the dropping of the atomic bomb put an end to the fighting in japan because as the article said, the Japanese were ready to continue fighting although they knew they were going to loose the war, which would result in a high number of American casualties.

Regan Glass

11/28/2019 08:20:11 pm

Do you agree with Truman's views (dropping the bomb was necessary) or Eisenhower's views (dropping the bomb was unnecessary), and why?

Om Surkund

12/2/2019 01:02:51 pm

I agree with Eisenhower's views in this situation. I don't think that the bomb was necessary in order to cause a change of events in the war. The humanitarian effects greatly outcome what actually was wanted from the US. I don't think that its fair to devalue human life as a medium to find a new war outcome. The war should not have been dropped as a way to save American lives, too many other HUMAN lives were lost.

Jamie Long

12/2/2019 04:49:35 pm

I agree more with Eisenhower's views that dropping the bombs was not necessary to end the war. From a moral standpoint, I think Truman faced a decision whether to sacrifice American or Japanese lives, although I feel that there were other ways that the war could have ended, without bombs. In particular, I think that the second atomic bomb was unnecessary. In Hasegawa's argument he talks about how the bombs were a big shock factor, which may have been partly the cause of surrender. However, I feel that one atomic bomb would have created enough shock, and there was the added event of Soviet entry into the war, which left the Japanese in a tight situation.

Jane Cho

11/28/2019 11:49:48 pm

Who did the atomic bomb affect more, America or Japan? Also do you think the second atomic bomb was necessary?

Brandon Jeans

11/29/2019 09:40:51 pm

I believe that the Japanese were definitely the ones most affected by the bomb from the loss of life and the cities that were destroyed. While the Americans lost nothing to drop the bombs on the two cities. For if a second bomb was necessary, I would have to say that the second bomb was necessary as stated in the first article "The Japanese minster of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that 'the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs... they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo." This showed the tremendous affect towards surrender that the second effect caused, especially since the article talked much about the military was one of the main driving factors that was preventing peace between Japan and America.

Soliha Norbekova

11/30/2019 04:15:27 pm

Unquestionably I would say the atomic bombs affected the Japanese more, not just in terms of casualties or city destruction, but in terms of long term effects as well. Efforts in rebuilding the cities and individuals who still suffer from the radiation exposure should be accounted for. As for the second atomic bomb, it would have been necessary if the Soviets did not intervene, but since they did it was unnecessary. In the second article it states "Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese would never have accepted surrender in August." Some may argue that America dropping the second atomic bomb showed Japan and Russia that America dropping the atomic bomb is not a one time thing, and instead they are stocked with these nuclear weapons. However, with Soviet intervention alone it would have been enough for Japan to surrender. As their economy was already lacking and their emperor was suffering.

Hadley Seifert

12/1/2019 01:35:04 pm

The atomic bomb affected Japan more with the destruction of cities, the high amount of casualties, and the long term environmental impacts due to the radiation exposure. I do not believe the second atomic bomb was necessary in terms of showing how advanced the US was and the power of nuclear weapons, as the US had done that with the first bomb. I do believe that it was necessary in getting the Japanese to surrender and end the war quicker then if the US and allies had invaded Japan.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 02:04:00 pm

I think that the bomb affected Japan more because after they were dropped their effect was huge on Japan and how they had to rebuild and come back from them compared to America where it just showed them what the bombs could do. I don't think the second bomb was necessary because the first was barely needed because Japan was going to surrender. The second bomb was definitely not necessary.

Kingston Hill

12/2/2019 08:01:45 pm

I wouldn't completely disagree with you but when you look at what America was trying to accomplish by dropping these bombs which was to really thrust themselves into an international spotlight and be looked at with more respect and as a global powerhouse, the second bomb was absolutely necessary from that standpoint, but in terms of the war itself I would agree in saying that it was immoral.

Femi Chegil

12/1/2019 11:20:32 pm

I would say Japan was affected more because the bomb was dropped on their land which would have affected their economy, culture, environment and well being. This act had brought devastation upon them and had made them accept defeat. Though, America was not really affected by this bombing, Many of them became concerned about their health and environmental effects of this bombing. Also, the second bombing was necessary because, the bombing at Hiroshima was not sufficient to convince the Japanese War Council to accept defeat and surrender.

Michael Herrera

11/29/2019 11:37:42 am

Do you think another atomic bombing of a similar magnitude to the ones during World War 2 could ever occur again within our lifetimes?

Daniel Mariano

11/30/2019 10:40:48 am

Though its hard to be certain I think we wouldn't have one in our lifetimes as there are more methods for peace now and now its becoming a worldwide thing amongst nations to make a pact to not use Nuclear weapons at all.

Soliha Norbekova

11/30/2019 04:30:05 pm

It's not impossible. I wouldn't say that the decision is entirely off the table. There are still many countries today that possess nuclear weapons. It would be impossible to make sure that all countries get rid of nuclear weapons as there would still be some that would still secretively have access to the weapons. There are also numerous terrorist groups that could potentially acquire these weapons and start a cascade of nuclear terrorism. However, it is highly unlikely for countries themselves to use these weapons as the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to be devastating; and, there are more diplomatic means of handling these situations as well.

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 12:05:15 pm

I don't believe it will because now that we have used them once and many countries have these type of weapons I feel no one will actually use them because it would very clearly lead to a extremely bad outcome for the entire world. They are basically just an empty threat at this point.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 01:53:39 pm

I don't think that it is every likely that we could witness an atomic bombs in out lifetime because it is well known what the bombs could cause and how nuclear warfare would destroy the earth. It is also true that nations are trying to make sure that bombs are not used.

Femi Chiegil

12/1/2019 11:01:33 pm

It could happen probably due to terrorists who have access to these weapons but I also don't think it would happen because countries now would not want lose them easily especially their leverage upon those weapons and also there are other peaceful ways to resolve issues nowadays.

Varun Pillai

12/5/2019 10:19:14 pm

Yes I believe so. With technology so advanced now, it is easier to make these atomic weapons. The world is certainly split among many different issues and I feel that if a conflict were to occur, atomic bombs could be used. There are tensions with other countries over atomic weapons.

Jane Cho

11/29/2019 01:40:47 pm

Do you think that there are better alternatives than the atomic bomb? If you, what alternative do you think could of been the best solution to end the war without the use of atomic bombs?

Michael Herrera

11/29/2019 02:59:37 pm

They were many better alternatives then the bombings available. I don’t feel that the United States was ever justified in dropping the atomic bombs on the Japanese. Lots of evidence that has come out over the years has pointed to the Japanese having been very close to surrendering, meaning there was no need for he bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aside from being unethical.

Soliha Norbekova

11/30/2019 04:41:39 pm

There were definitely alternatives then just using the atomic bombs. Truman decided that this would be the "quickest" way to do so as it prevented further warfare that would have otherwise continued. Some alternatives listed in the articles include waiting for Soviet intervention, implementing a naval blockade and use of conventional bombing, or invasion of the island Although there was a lot of anti-Japanese propaganda during this time, Truman definitely was not looking to bomb the Japanese people or culture, but instead was trying to stop Japan from strengthening the war.

Femi Chiegil

12/1/2019 10:46:50 pm

I agree with this statement because Truman wanted Japan to surrender and dropping the bomb was the fastest way to do that. But, since Japan was controlled by militarists, Truman did not seek to destroy their culture or people; the goal was to destroy their ability to start a war.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 01:49:11 pm

There were better alternatives than dropping the bombs. There is great evidence that showed that Japan was very close to surrendering so I believe that invading would have been a much better decision. Since Japan was close to surrendering there was no real to drop the bombs.

Hadley Seifert

12/1/2019 02:32:05 pm

I believe that there were alternatives to the atomic bombs that were better in the sense that they were more ethical, such as the invasion of Japan, but they would have taken more time, effort, and resources to carry out which explains why Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb. I believe that if Truman wasn't as eager to end the war any way possible other alternatives would have been implemented that were more ethical such as a naval blockade, invasion of Japan, or even continuing the smaller scale bombings.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/29/2019 04:18:18 pm

When Truman explained the idea of dropping the bombs in Japan, he emphasized that it had saved thousands of American lives, a more massive invasion, and that it was done for the good of America, do you think Truman, like Polk in the invasion of Texas, was calling America to such a drastic action for his selfish reasons or was it really for the Americans?

Tvisha Shete

11/30/2019 05:06:58 pm

I think to some degree, Truman had dropped the bombs as a way to prevent further bloodshed, but it was primarily an aggressive action made out of criticism towards Truman at the time. Truman had showed uncertainty towards his decision to drop the bomb, and the amount of backlash he received from this caused Truman to make the rash decision to drop the bomb.

Austin Nguyen

12/1/2019 03:33:16 pm

I think Truman had definitely done it in the best interest of America and American lives. It stated in both articles how Truman struggled to come to terms with his decision on the bombing, showing how he didn't personally want to drop the bomb either, but he did it in the hopes of being able to save more lives than there would be taken.

Jamie Long

12/2/2019 04:24:11 pm

I think that Truman had moral intentions, and a primary justification was that it saved many American lives. In Polk's case, he was justifying selfish reasons and wanted to expand America following the idea of manifest destiny, while Truman was faced with a decision that would affect the lives of thousands of Americans whether he decided to use the bombs or not.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/29/2019 04:34:11 pm

I think its important to note that throughout American history, there are many of the same ideas that show up in the American issues such a white superiority or ethnic inferiority in which Americans believed in to justify their actions. As presented,“Since April 1 the Japanese had fought with a ferocity that mocked any notion that their will to resist was eroding. They had inflicted nearly 50,000 casualties on the invaders, many resulting from the first large-scale use of kamikazes...Reports from Tokyo indicated that Japan meant to fight the war to a finish." This depicts that the Japanese were ready to go to any extent to stop invasion. I think its important to show how the author depicts Japan's actions in a destructive way in order to justify America’s actions. This also connects to how other authors in the past depicted other ethnic groups such as Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and Filipinos as atrocious killers. For example, Theodore Roosevelt justified American imperialism by depicting the Filipinos as savages and incapable to function by themselves, the same idea can be seen through most of American's war and expansion issues. If you think about it, quite a number of America's issues are related in terms of the same ideology.

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:37:22 pm

I would agree with this stance, particularly because there's much of a debate regarding whether the dropping of the second atomic bomb was actually necessary (was it politically motivated vs. was it out of anger/resentment). In terms of the American side we would justify dropping the second atomic bomb for a couple of reasons, like the Japanese not responding quickly or not accepting our terms for unconditional surrender, etc. On the other hand there are multiple unexplored alternatives that might have led to a totally different wartime outcome, but of course you would have to doubt how effective they would be + again they are just "what if" hypotheticals so no one can know for sure. But in conclusion, yes, America definitely underscores all of its "political endeavors" with some sort of moral/feelings related sentiment/initiative too, with the examples you've cited as some of the more prominent instances of these/this.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 08:20:20 pm

Do you think that the Japanese government should have tried protested the use of the atomic bombs more than just the one letter from August 10? Why do you think that Japan only had one letter of protest? Do you think protesting against the bombs would have stopped the use of them or ended the war sooner?

Brandon Jeans

11/29/2019 09:44:31 pm

As stated in the article "After Japan accepted the American occupation and became an important ally of the United States, the Japanese government has never raised any protest about the American use of the atomic bombs." Therefore, I believe that the quick recuperation of their relationship lead to the end of the protests. For if they should have protested more, I don't think they should have as the people had already seen the tremendous power of a bomb, and were now in fear of a nuclear war already. Trying to outlaw the use of them would change nothing in a total war scenario, so I don't think protesting against the use of nuclear bombs would not have changed anything.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 08:24:55 pm

Which alternative option towards the war & dropping of the atomic bombs, given by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa do you think was best way for ending the war sooner? Was the different options realistic or not? Was there any other ways that could have ended the war sooner?

Logan Siege

12/9/2019 10:13:40 am

When reading the article by Hasegawa, he proposed the idea that the United States and USSR could allow Japan to remain a constitutional monarchy. This would allow Japan to keep certain aspects of their government if they were to surrender. I think that this would have reduced tensions, although I don't think that it is a plausible solution due to the opposition between the US and USSR. In my opinion, it is near impossible to find a fundamentally ethical solution to end the war sooner than by using the Atomic bombs.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 08:27:14 pm

Would it have been better to add the provision of promising the preservation of a constitutional monarchy in Japan in the Potsdam Proclamation or not? Where there more benefits one way verses the other? How do you think it would have impacted the war if it was added?

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 04:37:32 pm

I think that including this provision would have led to a better outcome and a speedier end to the war. As Hasegawa claims, this addition to the proclamation likely would have pushed Japan to surrender after the first bomb, eliminating the need for the second one. Furthermore, Truman's argument for the omission of this provision centered around the idea that it would lead to public dissent, an idea that is not fully supported. Hasegawa writes, " newspaper commentaries were evenly split between those who advocated the abolition of the emperor system and
those who argued that the preservation of the monarchical system could
be compatible with eradication of Japanese militarism." Truman could have also justified the addition of this provision by arguing that it would save American lives by ending the war earlier.

Kara Musteikis

11/29/2019 08:29:22 pm

On page 22 it said “Japanese policymakers who were in position to make decisions must bear the responsibility for the war’s destructive end more than the american president & Soviet dictator.” Do you believe this is true that Japan is the main person to blame for the war or do you think that each country was responsible?

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 11:04:40 am

I don't think there is just one country to blame because as Hasegawa explored alternatives to ending the war, we were able to see that each of the three(US, Soviet Union, Japan) could've have made decisions that could've ended the war---the US could've accepted Japan's conditions of having a constitutional monarchy, the Japanese could've talked directly to the US instead of relying on the Soviet Union to act as a mediator, the Soviet Union could've been more focused on ending the war rather than their expansion. All three of these countries played a part in not ending the war as soon as possible with the least amount of casualties.

Connor Lauchengco

12/2/2019 11:05:11 am

While I believe that all countries involved played a part in elongating the war I believe that Japan was the main culprit in the unfortunate civilian deaths from the Atomic bombs. The unbending nature of the military leaders and refusal to concede sooner led to the U.S. making what it believed, given its information, was the quickest way to end the war with the least deaths.

Arabella Cai

12/2/2019 10:29:35 pm

Although I believe that there was not solely one country to blame for the war, I think Japan did play a major role in committing the atrocities during World War II. One page 20, it stated that "The Japanese government was guilty of its own atrocities in violation of the laws governing the conduct of war. The Nanking Massacre of 1937, biological experiments conducted by the Unit 371 … represent only a few examples of Japanese atrocities.” It is evident that the Japanese Army during World War II committed many crimes against humanity, in order to achieve their goals of imperialism, they did a lot of brutal actions to invade lands. However, their claim about the fact that the atomic bombing was an essential factor for their surrender prevented them from coming to terms with their own guilt in causing the war in most parts of Asia. To sum up, I believe that Japan played a significant role in inducing the war.

Brandon Jeans

11/29/2019 09:32:34 pm

While the atomic bomb was originally dropped for many immediate benefits, such as preserving American soldiers and ending the war quickly than a large invasion. What were some of the long term benefits of dropping the bombs, for example the fear and prevention of nuclear warfare that was created in society after seeing the destruction of a bomb?

Daniel Mariano

11/30/2019 10:39:09 am

Probably one of the long-term benefits of dropping the atomic bombs was that nations came together to begin to make a pact to not use these types of weapons again.

Daniel Mariano

11/30/2019 10:37:46 am

If the use of nuclear weapons wasn't needed to get Japan to surrender do you think that the Cold War would be worse than it was for maybe not even happen?

Connor Lauchengco

12/2/2019 11:07:17 am

I believe that even if the U.S. did not use atomic bombs on Japan they would have found an excuse to try it at least once in the field. A historical event that supports this is General MacArthur arguing for its use during the Korean war. I believe there would still have been an arms race.

Amritha Alaguraj

11/30/2019 02:08:18 pm

In the 'Yes' article, it mentioned the the number of American lives saved and the number of Japanese lives that would be affected or the impact of the bomb number differed between what was told to Truman, other officials, etc. Do you think it was these different numbers that may have influenced Truman to think that the bomb was a good idea since the numbers told to him were less than the actual estimate?

Tvisha Shete

11/30/2019 05:18:35 pm

I think that the numbers did factor in Truman's decision to drop the bomb, but there was speculation at the time that the accuracy of those numbers was low, which is likely, due to his job as president, Truman would've recognized. In other words, the numbers could have influenced his decision, but it wasn't a sole factor.

Morgan Kelley

12/1/2019 10:58:26 am

Yes, I do believe that the numbers reported by Truman's officials about the casualties greatly influenced the president's final decision to drop such deadly weapons. As mentioned in the prompt, the number of life loss given by the officials was much less than what actually played out following the release of the a-bombs. Since the weapon was so new to warfare, I believe that Truman came from the perspective that this weapon would be enough of a message (being new and widely untested), yet result in the death of less life than invading Japan's homeland.

Jamie Long

12/2/2019 04:42:26 pm

I think that that report did influence Truman to decide to use the atomic bombs because it served as extra justification. With the added factor of the inaccurate numbers, the government didn't seem to need a huge amount of convincing, especially according to Maddox's argument. While it may not have been the only/tipping factor, I think that it definitely supported the idea that the bombs would be a quick way to end the war, or at least function as a shock.

Tvisha Shete

11/30/2019 04:51:53 pm

In the decision to drop the atomic bomb, did civilians have any say or chances to assert their opinions, and if so, were these opinions influenced by government using propaganda or other media?

Sharan Sivakumar

12/1/2019 09:49:15 am

I don't believe that the citizens really had a say because for one thing, the decision to drop the atomic bomb was a sudden one and the fact that most of the quotes from the article were from people in government positions.

Morgan Kelley

12/1/2019 10:54:40 am

Within the decision to drop the bomb on Japan by American forces, I believe that the citizens had little to no role on the outcome or financial choice to pursue the atomic bomb. Although citizens debated what steps the nation should pursue next (i.e. the atomic bomb or invading the mainland), they did not have much of an influence on those who chose the final rulings. Moreso, their actions and discussions remained within the public opinion and rarely (if ever) transitioned into the nation's decisions within the entirely of World War I.

Hayley White

12/1/2019 02:08:53 pm

I believe that civilians didn't have a direct say in the matter of dropping the bombs. On the other hand, they did play a more passive role in persuading Truman to drop the bombs, because the longer he waited to act against Japan, the more impatient and unhappy the American public got. In order to please them and their wants, he ended up dropping the bomb, but I don't think they were able to directly tell him how they felt about the situation.

Bryce Hagstrom

12/1/2019 04:40:55 pm

I don't believe the American citizens had a large say in the attack because is was a secret military operation but if the bomb was known about and wasn't used to end the war sooner and save American lives there could have been a lot of animosity between the government and the general public.

Grayson Cochran

12/1/2019 08:24:02 pm

No citizens didnt have any chance to assert their opinions on the bombs. American citizens were not even informed about the making of the bombs. I think that Truman took american opinions into consideration before dropping the bombs but I think his main priority was ending the war without risking any more American lives.

Gustav Cedergrund

12/2/2019 09:46:46 am

No, the Manhattan Project and the dropping of the atomic bomb was a confidential operation so that the Japanese couldn't prepare for the bomb. The public had no say in the dropping of the bomb, and only a few in government made the actual decision.

Noel Garcia

12/9/2019 08:05:00 am

The U.S is in a Republic which entails representatives, that are elected, to make decisions on laws and military actions. The public only has a say in voting, not governmental action.

Lalitha Edupuganti

11/30/2019 04:59:09 pm

"Truman’s refusal to include this provision was motivated not only by his concern with domestic repercussions but also by his own deep conviction that America should avenge the humiliation of Pearl Harbor. Anything short of unconditional surrender was not acceptable to Truman.” The above quote on Truman shows that one of the main reasons he pushed for the atomic bomb was because of his anger on the pearl harbor issue. Do you think there was any one event that was the "last straw" to lead to the bombings of Hiroshima?

Yusuf Zayan

12/1/2019 02:21:48 pm

Although I think that the pearl harbor atack was a major motivator for truman dropping the bombs on Japan, I don't think that that was the last straw the led him to making that decision. Pearl Harbor was on the minds of Americans during the entire war and is what cause them to joining the war in the first place. However, I think there were other factors, such as american prisoners and the deaths that could be caused by an invasion, that also caused him to make the decision to drop the bomb.

Nadiya Patel

11/30/2019 05:04:12 pm

In the text, Maddox says, “... what would have happened if tens of thousands of American boys had died or been wounded on Japanese soil and then it had become known that Truman had chosen not to use weapons that might have ended the war months sooner.” Do you think Truman was also looking out for his own reputation within the American public when he made his choice? (He served as president following the death of FDR April 1945 until January 1953)

Tvisha Shete

11/30/2019 05:12:45 pm

I think that Truman was looking out for his own reputation when he decided to drop the bombs. His uncertainty at the time produced a lot of backlash against his credibility as president, which influenced his decision to drop the bomb.

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 10:52:40 am

I think that his reputation played a part in his decision making because while the dropping of the bombs was immoral, it ultimately saved more American lives, making sure that he upheld his obligation to the American people. On the other hand, if he didn't drop the bombs and "tens of thousands of Americans" died during an invasion, he would've been blamed for not protecting his people, leading him to most likely not be elected in the next term.

Hayley White

12/1/2019 02:06:21 pm

I think that Truman was looking out for his reputation because he knew that if many Americans died because of a decision that he made, then he would be blamed and the American public's viewpoint on him would never be the same again. I think that he wouldn't have been re elected had a bunch of American soldiers been hurt or died on Japanese soil.

Aiden Hall

12/1/2019 03:32:37 pm

I believe that the primary motivator was the effects of a full out invasion of the home islands on the morale of the public at home. Eventually, when Japan had to be violently occupied, Truman would go down as the man who did it, and this would significantly hurt his reputation for the next presidential election.

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 11:57:43 pm

Yes, I feel like Truman did not know much about the atomic bombs himself, and relied a lot on the opinions of his military advisors and government officials to make his decision. But along with that, I think he also wanted to appease the people and did not want it to seem like he didn't do everything he possibly could to win the war, no matter how harsh, as long as it would save American soldiers' lives. In that way, I think he was trying to help his reputation by acting as a strong leader in the war and helping us reach American victory.

Shazia Muckram

11/30/2019 08:14:23 pm

America decided to bomb the innocent people? Why not a base? Were there any other reasons that the United States bombed the civilians who had no role whatsoever in the war?

Sharan Sivakumar

12/1/2019 09:34:48 am

I believe that America decided to bomb the innocent people because they knew that if they did so, Japan would be crippled overall, not just in terms of its army, because even if Japan lost a good chunk of its army, their national pride could make up for that. Another reason why the Americans did so was to cripple the Japanese national pride.

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 10:31:51 am

This war was an example of total war between countries. To make each other surrender, warring countries needed to target civilians so that their government would be pressured to surrender. At this time, America wanted to ended the war as soon as possible with as few American casualties as possible which the atomic bomb did. Also, a base would've resulted in more conflict between the US and Japan as a base in Japan would've most likely been invaded by the Japanese in order to protect themselves.

Morgan Kelley

12/1/2019 10:50:52 am

Although I don't agree with the methodology and the decision by America to bomb the innocent civilians of Japan, I believe that their motive in a sense to perform an action that was indisputably critical in the war and pivotal to the future of the nation. Additionally, I believe that America choose civilian towns to bomb as the loss of life of those who had no role within the war as a way to display to Japan the great loss of innocent life on all accounts and nations of within the conflict.

Bryce Hagstrom

12/1/2019 04:38:31 pm

I believe one of the most significant reason the US chose a more civilian area to bomb was because they were curious of the destructive power of the bomb and if they used it against a military zone that had already been bombed then the damage data would not have been evident.

Anastasia Neff

12/1/2019 06:08:57 pm

As we know of all wars there are always more civilian deaths than military and this war was no exception. These two cities were very strategically picked to make the most impact on the emperor of Japan. These cities, although not technically military bases were holding over 70,000 troops. These bombs were not targeted to kill civilians but rather to influence the political scheme.

Neha Malkar

12/1/2019 09:26:59 pm

I think a big reason why America bombed them was also due to Pearl Harbor. The article mentioned the possibility of wanting revenge for Pearl Harbor. In addition to this America needed them to surrender as soon as possible and one of the only ways they saw to do this was to harm the civilians. This would force them to surrender.

Gustav Cedergrund

12/2/2019 09:43:34 am

Yes, Hiroshima was a civilian city, but it actually was also the location of a large military base as well as being a hub of production for military weapons and goods. They picked the city in order to maximize the amount of damage that Japan would experience in terms of civilian and military casualties

Anisha Harkara

12/2/2019 09:41:44 pm

Im pretty sure both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military bases/manufacturing to some degree, especially Hiroshima. However, many innocent civilians died as well. Truman thought that bombing was the best option for Americans, but it was unfortunately at Japan's expense. I guess Truman thought this this way would save more lives overall. Personally I think his logic was a bit flawed, but he did what he thought he had to do.

Nandana Pillai

12/10/2019 12:08:53 am

Hiroshima was chosen because it had not yet been attacked by the U.S. Air Force's conventional bombing and was thus, considered ideal to "test" the bombs effects. Along with this, it was actually an important military base. It is hard to understand why America decided to bomb innpcent civilians when you think about it from a moral perspective. But, I think they thought this devastating loss to Japan would cause them to reel from the attack and wish to surrender. Plus, I think that even if they could have bombed an area without civilians, they wanted revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbor and their resentment towards that attack caused them to allow this horrifying and inhumane act of destruction to take place.

Sharan Sivakumar

12/1/2019 09:28:37 am

Was it possible that U.S politicians considered other viable methods of getting japan to surrender or that these same U.S politicians didn't even consider other viable methods because of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor to the fact that they wanted revenge?

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 10:42:30 am

I think that throughout the decision making process of whether or not the US should drop the atomic bombs, US officials focused on the option that would give them the least amount of American casualties on Japanese land--if the Americans invaded Japan, there would've been a lot of American casualties. In the Maddox article, Maddox talked about how Truman had a duty to protect American lives which he did with the decision of dropping the a-bombs. He also writes about how the war occurring in Philippines, China, etc., and how the dropping of the atomic bombs --> the Japanese surrendering prevented more bloodshed in other countries.

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 11:01:01 am

I do believe they wanted to get revenge and that is why they would only give Japan the option of unconditional surrender when they could've allowed Japan to keep their constitutional monarchy and the whole thing would've went over a lot smoother and probably without the atomic bombs.

Grayson Cochran

12/1/2019 08:20:03 pm

I dont think wanting revenge played a big role in dropping the bombs. The atomic bombs were nearly 4 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I think Americas mentality over those four years changed alot, at first they were in it for revenge but after finding out about the atrocities that happened in Germany I think the US was mainly just trying to end the war.

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 10:23:27 am

What impact did the lack of clear communication between the Soviet Union, US, and Japan have during the war?

Hayley White

12/1/2019 01:54:04 pm

I think that if the Soviet Union, US, and Japan had communicated more there would have been less confusion and possibly even more compromise between the nations. Japan and the US could have created an agreement with each other that would have led to no atomic bombs ever being dropped. The lack of clear communication caused uncertainty and suspicion between the three nations that ultimately led to the situations outcome of bombs being dropped on Japan.

Bryce Hagstrom

12/1/2019 04:36:44 pm

The lack of communication between the USSR and the US is a continuity in history seeing that the cuban missile crisis later in time could have been avoided if the two sides listened to each other. When the USSR invaded Japan the US didn't use this to our advantage and let the Soviet Union do the hard work to make Japan surrender.

Grayson Cochran

12/1/2019 08:16:42 pm

I think that the lack of communication played a big role in dropping the bombs. If the USSR and the US had communicated they probably could have found a more humane solution to get japan to surrender rather than dropping the two bombs. I also think that if communication between Japan and the US was better than it would have never gotten to the point of dropping the two bombs. Japan feared they would lose their monarchy which the nation was based around but the US actually kept the monarchy, they just gave it a new emperor.

Tanvi Musale

12/1/2019 10:34:46 am

There was a quote in the Hasegawa article -“Would the continued use of the bombs have solidified or eroded the resolve of the Japanese to fight on?”
What do you think might’ve happened? Do you think the high amount of casualties would've pushed the Japanese to continue to fight against their enemies or decrease their morale?

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 05:13:12 pm

While there is an argument to be made that the use of several more bombs could have encouraged the Japanese to continue fighting, I feel that the huge loss of civilian life would have ultimately led them to surrender, even without Soviet entry in the war. Not only would hundreds of thousands more citizens have died and the cities that were bombed be subjected to radiation exposure, Japan's economy would be tied up in recovery efforts making it difficult for them to continue fighting.

Noel Garcia

12/9/2019 08:02:06 am

I believe he's alluding to nuclear missiles and not conventional explosions as bombshells and grenades.

Morgan Kelley

12/1/2019 10:45:30 am

Why do you think American withheld an idea of absolute surrender for the war? Do you believe if was encouraged by internal policies or movements? If so, which ones?

Allen MacMillan

12/1/2019 08:48:55 pm

I don’t think it was encouraged by internal policies and was more influcenced by the previously fought wars and the U.S was trying to prevent future conflict in the region, unlike what happened with Germany after WWI, an absolute surrender let the U.S shape Japan as we wanted.

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 10:57:42 am

I believe it was justified to drop the atomic bombs. I feel as if there was no other way for Japan to surrender and under any other circumstances they would not have unless we performed a mainland invasion. Which would've caused massive death tolls for both sides.

Kishan Patel

12/1/2019 01:42:43 pm

How do you guys think the war would have ended if the bombs were not dropped and the United States decided to invade instead?

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 01:53:55 pm

I believe the war would've continued much longer because the invasion had talks of delaying the wars end 6 extra months. Also with the projected death tolls of just US troops of a proposed invasion being 500,000, I think an invasion would've been really bloody and messy and would've created more longer lasting tension between Japan and the US.

Yusuf Zayan

12/1/2019 02:08:36 pm

I believe that had the United States decided to invade instead of using the bombs, the war still would have ended with the same outcome of Japan surrendering. However, it would have taken much longer and it would have resulted in many more deaths. In the document by Maddox, it says "Every day that the war continued thousand of prisoners of war had to live and die in abysmal conditions, and there were rumors that the Japanese intended to slaughter them if the homeland was invaded.” Prisoners being killed is just one example of how an invasion would have significantly increased the death toll.

Hannah Savariyar

12/2/2019 02:09:53 pm

I believe that Japan would have surrendered, but the war would have been much longer and many more casualties for American lives. With American troops invading Japan, and Japanese troops fighting back, many more casualties would have occurred. I also believe that our relationship with Japan would have definitely been different in the future.

Hayley White

12/1/2019 01:50:38 pm

Do you think Truman or his staff could have done any more investigating into what Japan was plotting for an attack against the US to better gauge the outcome of a potential land invasion?

Kingston Hill

12/1/2019 01:54:00 pm

Should the US have just settled for less than unconditional surrender and allowed Japan to keep their constitutional monarchy?

Yusuf Zayan

12/1/2019 02:17:33 pm

I believe that had the United States not been so strict with their conditions when it came to the Japanese surrender, the war would have ended earlier and without the use of the atomic bombs. The second document stated “On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone were not decisive in inducting Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was.” This quote shows that it wasn't even the bombs that led Japan to surrender, and that different surrender conditions could have resulted in the Japanese surrendering earlier.

Varun Iyer

12/1/2019 04:11:21 pm

I agree with Yusuf that the US should not have only settled for unconditional surrender. Additionally, it was stated multiple times in the discussion text that Japan was trying to negotiate surrender as long as they got to keep the constitutional monarchy. Had the US accepted these conditions, there likely would have been no need to drop the bombs and would have also preserved many Japanese lives in addition to American ones.

Jessica Xia

12/1/2019 01:55:18 pm

How are the American ideals seen in this event similar to other events in history?

Allen Macmillan

12/1/2019 09:03:10 pm

I think the American Ideals seen in WWII are similar to those found throughout history until the end of the war when America helped to bring other countries out of the war with the Marshal Plan, this one of the first time throughout history that we see this occur.

Hadley Seifert

12/1/2019 01:58:32 pm

If Truman had followed the original plan and waited until November 1, how do you think the outcome of the war would have changed? Would Japan surrender during that plan, or do you believe that the US would still have dropped the atomic bomb?

Karen Jean

12/1/2019 04:43:57 pm

I don't think Japan would have surrender because it even say in the articles that after the bombs were dropped Japan was still willing to keep on fighting and not give up so they wouldn't have given up especially when they were still in good conditions.

maddie girolimon

12/1/2019 07:57:16 pm

I think that Japan would not have surrendered to the conditions that were proposed in that plan because quite frankly i think the conditions where very unfair and just a way to assert as much power over Japan as possible. I do however think that if the original plan was followed there would have been more time to alter the original plan and Japan would have surrendered before the bombs were dropped.

Hannah Savariyar

12/2/2019 01:53:05 pm

I believe that Japan would not have surrendered with this plan because it states in the second article, "The two bombs alone would most likely not have prompted the Japanese to surrender, so long as they still had hope that Moscow would mediate 296 Conclusion peace.” This shows that Japan was stubborn and the invasion and the following of the original plan by Truman would not lead to the quick surrender that America anticipated for.

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 11:43:34 pm

I don't think that Japan would have surrendered if Truman had followed the original plan, mainly because of Japan's undying loyalty and determination to fiight till the end, like how they kept fighting even after the bombs were dropped. I also don't think Japan would have ever surrendered as long as the U.S. demanded unconditional surrender and no major attacks took place to shock the country into surrender like the dropping of the bombs along with the soviet invasion. I think that Truman would have used the atomic bombs anyways because of the American lives that were at stake if he didn't.

Yusuf Zayan

12/1/2019 02:04:52 pm

As explained in the document by Robert Maddox, one reason that Truman decided to use the nuclear weapons was that Japan still held many American prisoners. The document says "Every day that the war continued thousand of prisoners of war had to live and die in abysmal conditions, and there were rumors that the Japanese intended to slaughter them if the homeland was invaded.” How big of a role if any do you think this reason played into Truman making the decision to use the bombs instead of invading?

Varun Iyer

12/1/2019 04:34:43 pm

I think this played a minor role in the decision to use bombs. I do not think the potential effects of (not) bombing on the POWs would have swayed the decision of the government. However, I do think that the potential effects on the POWs were considered in the decision to use bombs.

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/1/2019 02:59:07 pm

Do you think there were manipulative war politics in deciding if the bombing should occur because it took place despite said "protests" from people such as Eisenhower. Do you think people against the bombings didn’t voice because of these war politics?

Karen Jean

12/1/2019 04:42:35 pm

I think that due to the fact that everyone who was in power was ok with dropping bombs then it occurred. Civilians were split half and half about it but once the people in high position see it one way well then it will most likely happen that way because they have the power to make the choices.

Gustav Cedergrund

12/2/2019 09:37:24 am

I don't believe enough people knew about the dropping of the atomic bomb for there to be dissent surrounding it. As shown in the articles, it was a decision made by Truman and a couple of military advisors. Anyone that did have the clearance level to know about the bomb prior to its dropping and disagreed with the decision, such as Eisenhower, had to submit to the Truman's final decision as president, and he chose to drop the bomb.

Aiden Hall

12/1/2019 03:28:36 pm

Was the bombing of Japan primarily politically motivated or was the U.S. government really concerned about the lives lost in an invasion? In other words, did they only care about the backlash and international effects of an invasion of japan, or did they care about the actual lives at stake themselves?

Karen Jean

12/1/2019 04:40:44 pm

I think it was a combination of both, they definetly believed that dropping these bombs would allow to cut the war time short saving American lives but they also were stuck with the revenge factors and wanted unconditional surrender from Japan.

Anastasia Neff

12/1/2019 06:02:48 pm

Although I think both had a place in the decision to drop the bombs. I believe that it was mostly to reduce the amount of lives lost. As the US saw it the fighting in japan was almost pointless. Everyday on both sides lives were being lost and no progress was being made. we had offered treaties to the Japanese, but they were not willing to surrender anytime soon. The fact that they did not surrender after the first bomb shows even more how much they were not going to give up. Ultimately I think the decision to drop the bomb was to save American lives.

maddie girolimon

12/1/2019 07:51:31 pm

I believe that dropping the bomb was very poorly thought out and most definitely more on a political stand point rather than because America feared its civilians safety. I think the bombs being dropped was a very strong political statement asserting Americas power. There is a quote that states “Truman‘s refusal to include this provision was motivated not only by his concern with domestic repercussions but also his own deep conviction that America should avenge the humiliation of pearl harbor” this supports the idea that the bomb was more revenge on the American side than a final resort or protection.

Austin Nguyen

12/1/2019 03:31:22 pm

What type of response do you guys believe the rest of the army the U.S government, and the general public would have had if the plan for the atomic bombing had been more openly discussed before the first bombing(disregarding whether or not it would have been plausible)?

Allen MacMillan

12/1/2019 08:43:24 pm

I think that the U.S government would have had been split over the decision more than the general public which was very nationalistic at the time and had a deep hatred for the Japanese.

Bryce Hagstrom

12/1/2019 04:33:51 pm

Due to the large role media plays in the people of any nation. Do you all believe the media was a large reason for the animosity between American and Japan and if so could that have been a primary reason to us the atomic bomb?

Allan Gilsenan

12/1/2019 07:01:14 pm

The media certainly helped create anti-Japanese messages in America during the war and prejudice against Japanese-Americans was commonplace during the time as seen by the internment camps among other things. That being said, I think that racist views against Japanese in America in 1945 definitely may have contributed to the dropping of the first and especially the second bomb, but I do not think racism was the primary motive. I think larger motives were that of avoiding an invasion of Japan, bringing soldiers home, and sending a message to the Soviet Union.

Dylan Thakur

12/2/2019 08:42:17 am

I think the decision to drop the bomb was entirely government made, however the reaction from the public was likely less critical because the propaganda used by the government.

Anisha Harkara

12/2/2019 09:31:04 pm

I certainly believe that the media played a major role in the animosity between the US and Japan. In class we discussed anti Japanese comics made by Dr. Seuss, and how he believed it effected the war. Overall, the comics were extremely racist and painted ALL Japanese in a negative light. I believe that this furthered hatred, especially for Japanese living in the US.

Karen Jean

12/1/2019 04:39:02 pm

Do you guys believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs lead to more security for the future due to the fact that people learned the atrocious effects of these types of bombs so they feel more encouraged to not use nuclear weapons?

maddie girolimon

12/1/2019 07:46:16 pm

I think dropping the bomb at the time it was dropped allowed the knowledge of the effects to be realized sooner rather than later preventing further caution. However I do believe that scientific advancements would have occurred later on and would allow people to know the dangers of the bombs without having them dropped anywhere that would harm people.

Ameena Farooqui

12/2/2019 07:50:35 am

Although this is a horrific event that occurred it is important to acknowledge that it led to ruling out the idea of future use of atomic bombs due to the devastating impact it had. It made all other countries to become more cautious towards the use of the atomic bombs and definitely led to more security regarding them.

Dylan Thakur

12/2/2019 08:40:56 am

I think that to most scientists who know the devastation of the atomic bombs the bombing did very little to change their views. However to the world population the effects were never seen before and possibly would have prevented future conflicts because the horrors witnessed.

Anastasia Neff

12/1/2019 05:40:06 pm

Something that Jared began to talk about at the end of our discussion was that the atomic bombing was "good." Many people immediately shot him down, mostly because of his word choice, but I agree with many of the things he said. By dropping this bomb we were able to understand and fully see the effects of an atomic bomb when detonated. Although we had research it is hard to be for sure until you actually drop a bomb. I think the dropping of these relatively small atomic bombs has prevented any further nuclear warfare today because we know how catastrophic the effects would be with the strength of today’s atomic bombs. Overall, although these bombs killed many people they have prevented further nuclear war which could be catastrophic.

Allan Gilsenan

12/1/2019 06:51:02 pm

Hasegawa argued that the US giving Japan better surrender terms would have probably changed the minds of Japanese officials and would have prevented at least one of the bombs from being dropped. Do you guys think that the US agreeing to Japan being able to retain its monarchial system in the case of their surrender have truly changed the minds of Japanese officials?

Om Surkund

12/2/2019 07:19:51 am

Honestly, I don't think that this would have caused the tensions to ease. As seen in the articles, there was obvious disagreement between the leaders Togo and Sato in the Japanese government. Togo wanted to keep the war going while Sato wanted to give up. This shows how even if they did get to keep their government, it would have ended up in many more instances of disagreement which would have probably led to civil affairs.

Grayson Cochran

12/1/2019 07:00:09 pm

If America had not used the atomic bombs to end the pacific war with japan, do you think atomic weapons would have been used at other times? If so do you think they would have done more damage than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Allan Gilsenan

12/1/2019 08:19:34 pm

There is no way to definitively say that there would have been nuclear war between the USSR and the US if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Japan but I think that this is a very likely outcome of the tensions of the cold war. Both countries would not have fully understood the horrifying effects of the bombs and this would have made either country much more likely to use them. In this way, one could validly argue that the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan in WWII had a long-term benefit. As for the second part of your question, it would depend on the area of the world that a bomb would have been dropped on; a bomb being dropped on a city with a greater population than Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be more damaging.

Manasvi Marthala

12/2/2019 06:38:33 pm

I do believe that they would have been used at another time. Even if they hadn't been used in the pacific war, the mechanism and weapon was already created meaning that the bomb would be put to use at some time. I think it would do more damage because as time goes on science improves, with a higher understanding of the weapon it would have been able to be used to make a larger impact.

Varun Pillai

12/5/2019 10:14:44 pm

Yes, I do believe that atomic bombs were going to be used in the future. With many high tensions going on throughout the world, there was bound to be another conflict where the bombs had to be used. The Soviets and the U.S. had high tensions with each other after the war after all.

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 11:35:23 pm

Yes, I think if America had not used the atomic bomb to end the Pacific War with Japan, they would still have been used later, if not by the United States itself, most likely another highly developed country with a strong military like the Soviets. I don't think we can be sure as to how much damage they would have done though, because the scientists working on the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unaware of the longterm effects it would have. Such may not be the case for another country using nuclear warfare.

Jamie Long

12/1/2019 07:16:55 pm

If FDR had not died prior halfway through the war, do you think he have made the same decision as Truman to approve the atomic bombings in Japan? For what causes?

Aditya Tripathi

12/3/2019 08:33:28 pm

He might not have. He was both politically stronger than Truman and more politically savvy. He might have made an effort to bring the war to a peaceful conclusion by negotiating with the Japanese after the Soviet Union entered the war. Had Japan resisted and an invasion became a certainty then he would have dropped the bombs.

Jamie Long

12/1/2019 07:18:40 pm

Based on the perspectives and point of views of the two different authors, what bias do you see present in their arguments? Do you think this takes away from the credibility of their argument in any way? Was there any difference in information/presentation of the info because of this?

Jamie Long

12/1/2019 07:20:50 pm

I think that one of the primary issue lies in the moral debate, once it had become clear that bombing Japan would greatly increase the speed of, if not cause, Japan to surrender. In Maddox’s argument he states that Truman decided to use the bombs because it avoided an invasion of Japan that would otherwise have cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers. However, I still don’t think this can completely justify the fact that thousands of Japanese civilians lost their lives and suffered. To me it seemed to become more of a question of which lives were more important; American or Japanese.

Jamie Long

12/1/2019 07:25:50 pm

One factor that I hadn't heard mentioned much before in this issue was the importance of Soviet involvement in the war to the Japanese. Hasegawa's argument includes hypothetical situations where Soviet involvement does and does not happen, and concludes that it was a significant factor in Japanese surrender. He includes that it involved shock factor, military/diplomatic influence, and Soviet military expansion.

Jamie Long

12/1/2019 07:30:24 pm

One argument that supports the use of the atomic bombs was that the decision was made by Truman in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, 24,000 people died in Pearl Harbor and 200,000 died due to the atomic bombing, so I feel that it is not really proportionate. Also, that doesn't account for the physical and radiation damage that affected Japan, while the damage to US ships and property in Pearl Harbor was less significant and able to be repaired to some extent. Overall, I think that this argument cannot be used to justify or explain the use of atomic bombs, especially not as the sole reason.

maddie girolimon

12/1/2019 07:40:54 pm

Do you believe that dropping the atomic bomb was america’s way of trying to end this dispute as quickly as possible rather than a necessary option?

Aditya Tripathi

12/1/2019 08:53:55 pm

The Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan, and it was possible to read the atomic bomb as a strong message for the Soviets to tread lightly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been both the first shots of the Cold War and the last shots of World War II in this way.

Dylan Thakur

12/2/2019 08:38:24 am

The atomic bombing was America’s way to end the conflict as quickly as possible without loss of American life. A ground invasion would have led to significantly more deaths because of the fighting spirit of Japanese soldiers, and their willingness to fight to the death.

Hannah Savariyar

12/2/2019 01:42:52 pm

I believe that the atomic bomb was America's way of trying to end this dispute quickly because their goal was to end the war as soon as possible. Although, there was the idea of invasion in order for Japan to surrender, America's easiest tactic for the war to end was the bombing. America also wanted the least amount of American lives lost, so the bombing in Japan would end the war, but also not have American casualties.

maddie girolimon

12/1/2019 07:58:48 pm

where the conditions of total surrender and tear down of Japanese government fair or reasonable of America to ask of Japan?

Om Surkund

12/2/2019 07:13:13 am

were* Also, I believe that the conditions that America demanded were fair considering the situation regarding both of them. The government that was ruling Japan was pretty unsuccessful in trying to ease war tensions. If their government was going to be successful for their people and for the world it would have done so at some point but that really never happened. I think that America demanding Japan for total surrender was reasonable for the time.

Allan Gilsenan

12/1/2019 08:06:52 pm

There is no definitive answer to this question, but it is very unlikely that the first bomb could have been avoided. The US tried hard to get the Japanese government to surrender but in reality, the only thing that was going to change the Japanese official’s minds was the shock factor and first-hand horrifying effects of the atomic bomb. The second bomb, however, was most likely not necessary and certainly rushed, being dropped only two days after the first. As previously mentioned, there is no definitive answer, but in my opinion, it is likely that if the US had given Japan more time or used the threat of a second bomb before dropping it, that Japan would have surrendered unconditionally.

Allan Gilsenan

12/1/2019 08:08:44 pm

^This was supposed to be a response to Maddie’s question.

Allen MacMillan

12/1/2019 08:35:58 pm

Do you think the Bombs were dropped to frighten the USSR rather than end the war after reading the documents?

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 08:43:57 pm

That is a very good question. I think that after reading the documents. I think that the Bombs were dropped for both reasons. I think that the US wanted to end the war for good, but also to show how much power we had and to show the world that we are a powerful force that shouldn't be messed with.

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 08:47:36 pm

In the Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan article it said that the Soviet Union entering the war had a bigger impact on Japan’s decision than the atomic bomb, do you think this is true?

I think that it is true because Japan was already losing to the US and it seemed that the war was just going to keep going. But when the Soviet Union joined, Japan started to feel threaten and started looking for peace.

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 08:50:17 pm

In the Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan article it said, "First he could have argued that ending the war earlier would save lives of American soldiers. Second he could have explained that this decision was necessary to prevent Soviet expansion in Asia”. This shows that Truman was very unsure about his true motives for the bomb dropping. But this also gives you details on Trumans want to stop the Soviet Union from spreading.

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 08:54:10 pm

In the The Biggest Decision: Why we had to drop the atomic bomb article it said, “Intercepts of Japanese military communications, designated ULTRA, provided no reason to believe the army was even considering surrender.” Do you think that it would have been possible for the Japanese military would give up?

I think that it won't be possible due there strong will.

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 08:58:20 pm

In The Biggest Decision: Why we had to drop the atomic bomb article it said, “Japan would have surrendered by November 1, “even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated” This completely goes against what I said before, so do you think that the this point or the one about the Japanese not surrendering is true?

I think that the point about Japanese military not giving up is true because their pride and fight was still very much alive and they seemed to now want to give up so easily.

Meredith G Burns

12/1/2019 09:03:44 pm

The question of, do you think that the atomic bombs were necessary, was mentioned in the class discussion but I never answered it. So here is my answer.

I don't exactly think that the bombs were necessary to end the war. But I think that it was a good tactic to show how advanced the USA was. But the dropping of the bomb was a, in my beliefs, bit of an overkill. The USA was already winning the war over Japan and Japan was even looking for a way to make peace with America. I don't think it was completely necessary.

Jakub Kreuter

12/2/2019 07:16:35 am

Two invasions were planned to be the end of the pacific campaign both were estimated to have huge casualties. The idea of a single bomb that would save hundreds of thousands of lives seemed a good alternative to many military leaders. How do you think these invasions would have changed Americans minds and the culture of the time if a bomb had never been used?

Brenna Hanson

12/2/2019 02:40:09 pm

Personally, I think this would have really turned the American people against the presidency and hurt a lot of the nationalistic spirit that had build throughout the war. As the first historian mentioned, Truman's reputation and political career would have definitely been hurt quite badly. If you look at how people reacted to the conflict in Vietnam- a seemingly senseless war with no end in site- I think the reaction could have grown into a similar movement.

Om Surund

12/2/2019 07:16:43 am

At the time, Japan's population consisted of Japanese people but also an unknown population of over 50,000 Korean slaves. If Truman had known about these people that could have been affected by the atomic bomb, do you think he would have done it?

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/2/2019 12:45:10 pm

I don't think Truman knowing about the Korean slaves would've changed how he reacted to the atomic bomb, i think he would've still supported it because in the readings it is evident that Truman was driven by anger towards the Japanese, and he was in a rage after the attacks on Americans in moment that I don't think he would take the time to sit and think about everyone that would be affected. In addition, due to the bombings, many innocents had died during the bombings, and Truman's justification at the time was to save many American lives that could have been lost from the last Soviet Union invasion.This shows that Truman was selfish for his men and didn't exactly acknowledge the Japanese or anyone else, and I think this wouldn't have changed after knowing about the Koreans. In addition, Hasegawa emphasizes Truman's main motive was to avenge for the death at Pearl Harbor.

Anisha Harkara

12/2/2019 09:24:24 pm

I also dont think that Truman knowing about the Korean slaves wouldn't have affected his decisions. Maybe he would have thought about it more, but I doubt it would have changed anything. The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed some military personnel, but the majority of those killed were innocent civilians. Furthermore, Lalitha mentions that Truman put American soldiers' lives over innocent Japanese lives, so I dont really think that innocent Korean slaves would have changed his decision.

Ameena Farooqui

12/2/2019 07:43:57 am

People could argue that Truman essentially knew that Japan would not budge from preserving a constitutional monarchy and reject the conditions the US would give. The Japanese delaying in giving a definite reply in turn gave Truman the opportunity to justify the use of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb provided the US with a solution despite the fact that alternatives were available.

Dylan Thakur

12/2/2019 08:36:32 am

Since Japan is a top 5 global market in today’s economy, could the nuclear bombing be considered a positive since it easily allowed the US to come in and help Japan bounce back?

Evan Speelman

12/2/2019 12:13:23 pm

I don't think the dropping of the bomb was a positive. While Japan's economy is in good shape today, I don't think that the bombing of Japan is the reason for their economic growth, however.

jared

12/2/2019 09:13:14 am

based on the discussion do you think that the use of the bomb had positive effects for global relations or negative effects

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 04:53:32 pm

I think the use of the bomb had both negative and positive effects on global relations. One obvious negative impact is that it led to friction between Japan and the U.S. It also set up tensions involving nuclear weapons, such as between the Soviet Union and the U.S. during the Cold War. On the flip side, this early use of the new technology helped prevent these tensions from escalating because the devastating impact of such weapons was seen early on.

Gustav Cedergrund

12/2/2019 09:13:38 am

How did the usage of the bomb in Japan change perceptions about the atom bomb? Did it discourage further use or encourage other countries to develop new technology?

Pratina Kandru

12/2/2019 04:43:15 pm

I believe that the use of the atomic bomb greatly altered the perception of just how lethal of a weapon it is. The bombs not only took countless amounts of lives, but it had long lasting negative impacts on the people and environment as well. The immense destruction of the bombs altered the perception of just how deadly they are which discouraged further use of them in warfare. Due to this it drove countries to develop new and more advanced technologies.

Molly Norris

12/2/2019 08:25:18 pm

The use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese was a turning point in how wars were fought, they became even more brutal and unpredictable since there was little you could prepare for a bomb, it also showed the power that countries could have over other even from the other side of the world and what they could from so far away, I believe that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan both encourage and discouraged the the use since some felt that it was necessary and that without it America would not be the same and others felt that it was too brutal of a tactic and discouraged the use of it in future wars

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/2/2019 10:39:42 am

Though the first bomb was justified as a action to save America's pride and to prevent a large invasion that would've caused the lives of greater numbers, the second bombing was seen as barbaric, selfish, unreasonable. Do you think the second bombing could be justified in any form by the Americans or anyone else?

Brenna Hanson

12/2/2019 02:35:27 pm

According to the first historian, the second bomb was justifiable due to the hardline leadership in the Japanese government. He writes, "American officials believed that more than one bomb was necessary because they assumed Japanese hardliners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, refused to even admit the Hiroshima bomb was even atomic." I think that his point is that without the second bomb, the first one would have likely been in vain- not accomplishing the ending of conflict and saving of lives American leaders hoped for.

Connor Lauchengco

12/2/2019 11:01:42 am

Was it the fault of all parties involved for not bending and relinquishing some terms in the surrender negotiations that caused the extension of the war leading to the A-bomb drops? Who is more at fault?

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/2/2019 11:33:59 am

Maddox described Americans to see Japan’s peace feelers as “weapons of psychological warfare”, do you think this idea could be driven by America’s idea of racial supremacy?

Brenna Hanson

12/2/2019 02:25:53 pm

I think this is a really good point. I think the use of bombs on Japan to force a total surrender was motivated in part by paternalism. American leaders wanted the Japanese people to give the US total control of their country due to a feeling of racial superiority.

Pratina Kandru

12/2/2019 04:37:47 pm

I do believe that this idea was driven by racial supremacy. The US was definitely motivated by expansionist ideals which led to the idea of racial supremacy; others were unfit to rule therefore it is America's responsibility to take over their country. This caused a feeling of inferiority towards other countries. This idea driven by racial supremacy caused American leaders to want to take total control over Japan.

Evan Speelman

12/2/2019 12:18:05 pm

Knowing how General MacArthur treated the use of nuclear missiles during the Korean war, do you think that he might have attempted to downplay the predicted effects to Truman in order to convince him to drop the bombs?

Hannah Savariyar

12/2/2019 01:00:18 pm

It was shown that Truman didn’t as much knowledge as maybe needed when making the decision, so if Truman had more knowledge on the situation, would he had made a different decision?

Pratina Kandru

12/2/2019 04:29:30 pm

I believe that Truman would have doubts but still go through with bombing Japan. This is because even long after the bombings he still insisted that what he did was the right even after knowing the lasting impacts the bombs caused. So because he was so adamant I believe that in his eyes he was making the right decision.

Manasvi Marthala

12/2/2019 06:21:56 pm

I believe that he would have made a slighlty differnent dicision. I think that he would have waited longer before ordering the boombs to go out and that he might have just stopped with one bomb.

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:54:25 pm

The article implies that some information was not properly communicated to Truman. Robert James Maddox says, "First, the report itself is studded with qualifications that casualties “are not subject to accurate estimate” and that the projection “is admittedly only an educated guess.” Second, the figures never were conveyed to Truman. They were excised at high military echelons, which is why Marshall cited only estimates for the first thirty days on Kyushu." If Truman had all of the facts, he could have made a completely different decision.

Dhairya Desai

12/2/2019 10:00:06 pm

I still believe that Truman would have still pull the trigger on the bombs becuase of the fact that he wanted revenge

Brenna Hanson

12/2/2019 02:42:13 pm

What blame, if any, do you think the Soviet Union and Japan share in how the Pacific Theatre ended? Additionally, do you think that the US's motivation of stopping Soviet advancement was valid?

tyler schueller

12/2/2019 08:15:09 pm

I think the use of atomic bombs was provoked by the Japanese but i also think that it was overkill and took too many lives. I also think that the slowing of Soviet advancements was justified in preventing the spread of communism and to prevent Japan from becoming another Germany.

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 04:17:55 pm

One of Maddox's main claims is that most of Truman's advisers, including MacArthur and Nimitz, never "expressed reservations about using the bombs". If more officials had spoken out against the use of the atomic bombs, as Eisenhower did, would the ordeal have been reconsidered?

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/2/2019 05:22:12 pm

I do think that if officials had spoken more against the use of atomic bombs, the bombings would've been reconsidered, this including more emphasis on the number of innocent deaths these bombings would take. I also think there could be war politics in which though officials may have been against the atomic bombs, fear of power or losing their position could've led them to not voice out. Another thing the officials could've done is if they wanted to voice out, they should've explained to more citizens and general public about the atomic bombs that America would be throwing.

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 11:23:50 pm

Yes, I definitely think that if more officials had been against using the atomic bombs, it would have been reconsidered. This is mostly because some people consider the Soviet invasion and not the bombs to even have caused the end of the war, thus justifying that alternative solutions could have been used that would have prevented such a mass casualty.

Pratina Kandru

12/2/2019 04:24:53 pm

As the president of the United States do you believe it was right that Truman put the lives of the American people first before the Japanese people when he came to the decision of bombing Japan or do you believe his thinking was unjust?

Lalitha Edupuganti

12/2/2019 05:02:24 pm

I think that Truman was incorrect in the choice to bomb the Japanese, because though he gave the justification that it was to save the lives of thousands of Americans, he in turn took the lives of thousands of innocents, which is immoral. To be really honest, the bombings didn't have the greatest positive effect for Americans nor Japanese. In addition, Hasegawa explains that Truman's motive for the bombing was mainly to avenge for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, this shows that Truman's power was manipulated mainly to fulfill his anger.

Manasvi Marthala

12/2/2019 06:17:09 pm

I don't hink he was right in putting the American lives first, but I don't think his thinking was unjust. He was trying to protect the citizens of America and in his mind the only way to have done that was by bombing the Japanese. While the bombing isn't humane it was what Truman thought was what was needed.

Molly Norris

12/2/2019 08:19:43 pm

I believe he was in the wrong and right when it came to what happened, I believe that a president of a countries top priority is the benefit of their country and their citizens and that is what is most important to them however the way it was executed was very brutal which is where I feel he is in the wrong

Jeshelle Venancius

12/2/2019 10:19:05 pm

Even though people are people, I believe that Truman was simply looking out for his country which he had promised to protect before looking at other countries interests.

Joshua Rogers

12/2/2019 11:04:27 pm

I do think it was right for Truman to put the lives of Americans first. As well the dropping of the bombs not only saved thousands of American lives but Japanese lives. Had we needed to stage a ground invasion the Japanese would have fought to the last man, in which case would cause thousands possibly millions lost on their side, and thousands of Americans could have been lost.

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 05:20:36 pm

How did the use of the atomic bomb against Japan set the stage for future conflicts involving nuclear weapons?

tyler schueller

12/2/2019 08:12:46 pm

It showed the power of nuclear weapons had at the time but i think it scared countries like the US and Soviet Union because it showed that a nuclear war could decimate much of the planet.

Molly Norris

12/2/2019 08:15:41 pm

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan set the stage for not only future conflicts between many countries, for example some Americans/Japanese still have tensions and hold negative beliefs of the countries but it also set the stage go the reliance of atomic bombs as a important resource of war

Larry Tian

12/2/2019 08:30:18 pm

I believe this was a major step toward nuclear conflicts/ nuclear developments. As Japan and other countries witnessed the power of this bomb, they probably all started researching it and developing their own, as they feared for their safety of their country. This is like Unit 731 (whatever it is), this led to advancements in medicine throughout the whole world, not just the one country that developed the research methods.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

12/13/2019 05:47:12 pm

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki essentially set the stage for the cold war and changed the way the world viewed war. There was now a bomb that could decimate an entire city and there was no way to prevent it. This led a lot of countries to go on the defense such as the Soviet Union and try to build the biggest, most powerful bomb to protect themselves.

Darren Chang

12/2/2019 05:22:04 pm

One thing we didn't discuss too much in the discussion was how Japan and the japanese public viewed and reacted to the Atomic Bombs. To what extent do you think the citizens of Japan were aware of the bomb and the state of the war at the time? How do you think their view affected the war effort?

Joey Caputo

12/2/2019 08:00:42 pm

I do not remember if it was stated in the article, but the Manhattan Project was one of the biggest kept secrets that the U.S. has had. There were numerous accounts of speculations that went around the public through newspapers and rumors but no one actually knew if it was true until the day Hiroshima was bombed. I think that if Japanese citizens knew about the bombs other than the rumors that were being passed around, I think that would've encouraged and swayed the war effort into a ceasefire or a truce of some sort.

tyler schueller

12/2/2019 08:11:10 pm

After the first bombing the Japanese government attempted to play the bombing off as an accident and not an attack so citizens outside of Hiroshima didn't really know what was happening until after Nagasaki. Japanese citizens also didn't have much control over their government.

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 05:39:05 pm

One argument that could be made in favor of the use of the bomb is the idea that Japan committed its own inhumane acts during the war, such as the Nanjing Massacre. However, Hasegawa refutes this by saying, " the moral lapses of the Japanese do not excuse those of the United States and the Allies." This is to say that the U.S. is not justified in its use of the atomic bomb just because Japan also committed atrocities throughout the war.

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 05:48:26 pm

Hasegawa offers several scenarios alternative to the ones that led to the bombing of Japan. One such alternative is the inclusion of a provision in the Potsdam Proclamation that would have allowed Japan's constitutional monarchy to stay in power. Another demonstrates what might have happened had the bombs not been dropped and the Soviet Union entered the war. Seeing as both of these scenarios might have ended in a quicker Japanese surrender, why didn't the U.S. look into these alternative options before choosing the drop the bombs?

Emma Penel

12/2/2019 06:01:27 pm

Hasegawa claims that had the Soviet Union not entered the war, two bombs probably wouldn't have been enough to convince Japan to surrender. If this scenario had played out, at what point and at what loss of life would Japan have reached its threshold? How many bombs would the U.S. have had to drop in order to get Japan to surrender?

Larry Tian

12/2/2019 08:28:04 pm

I feel as this question is very subjective and based on how you view the matter. I believe Japan would of taken a few more bombs before surrendering, as the articles talked about Japans fighting spirit and fierceness a lot. However both the authors could of exaggerated it, as Maddox might of used this as a justification to drop more bombs. Hasegawa could of used this to uphold his Japanese culture and show that Soviets really were the main cause of the surrender. Based on how you view their fighting spirit and the politics involved. you could of went either way on if they would take more bombs or surrender. Personally, I believe they would of taken a few more bombs till they surrendered (without soviets)

Jackson Pollard

12/3/2019 05:52:14 am

Japan would likely have gone to far greater lengths to resist surrender to the United States. While they had been negotiating their surrender with the Soviet Union, they did not want to accept an outright unconditional surrender that would compromise their structure of government. For this reason, Japan was far more stubborn in the face of America.

Joey Schifano

1/9/2020 10:58:23 am

I do not think the United States would feel as pressured to drop the bomb if the soviet union was not involved

Avni Arora

12/2/2019 06:02:24 pm

Many people agree that dropping one bomb was justified due to the conditions of WW2 but, was it necessary to drop two bombs consecutively.

Annie Elvin

12/2/2019 09:47:33 pm

I do not believe it was justified to drop a second atomic bomb. Although Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped, a second one was not the only way to achieve their forfeit. After the first bomb, Japans economy and military was so worn down, that an invasion after that would have resulted in a possible surrender with less casualties.

Dhairya Desai

12/2/2019 09:58:50 pm

I dont belive that it was neccessary to drop two bombs becuase not only that it led to great damage but some historians even belive that one bomb would have got the japanese to surrender.

Angela Xu

12/3/2019 06:39:48 am

I do not believe that it was necessary to drop two bombs consecutively because there were many other options (that are not as violent) available that could’ve had the same outcome. Given the fact that there were more solutions out there other than dropping another bomb, the second bomb wasn’t necessary.

Manasvi Marthala

12/2/2019 06:12:08 pm

There is alot of proof showing that the second bomb was not necessary for the Japanese to surrender. What do you think the USSR or the USA could have done rather than drop the second bomb?

Molly Norris

12/2/2019 08:11:30 pm

There was many other violent and non violent options they could have used instead of dropping the second bomb, for example they could have used other forms of violence that were not as detrimental as the atomic bomb was, they also could have used the threat of dropping more bombs as a way to persuade Japan.

Crystal Gayle

12/2/2019 07:46:08 pm

If there wasn't as much Americans against the Japanese, do you think that the U.S. would still use atomic bombs to make Japan surrender?

Dhairya Desai

12/2/2019 09:55:03 pm

I still believe that they would have just because the president was really pushing for it and it was mainly a sign of revenge rather than just war.

Jackson Pollard

12/3/2019 05:49:59 am

I believe that the atomic bombs would still likely have been used as an intimidation factor against the Soviet Union and to meet the objectives of president Truman.

Angela Xu

12/3/2019 06:37:32 am

I believe that Americans would still use the bombs because the US at this point was looking at any solution that could end the war. The US wanted to end the war as fast as possible.

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 11:16:52 pm

I still think that the U.S. would have used the atomic bombs because the public opinion was not the main deciding factor on whether or not to drop the bombs, also at that point the dropping of the atomic bomb was a way to quickly end the war while saving as many American lives as possible

Joey Caputo

12/2/2019 08:03:19 pm

In one of the articles it talked about dropping a third bomb on Tokyo, in our class discussion there were numerous points about how bombing or attacking a capitol would not likely happen because it would lead to chaos in the country and possibly destroy the country's hope of reconstruction. What do you think would've happened if another bomb was dropped on Tokyo? What reasons would the U.S. need to drop it?

Larry Tian

12/2/2019 08:23:43 pm

I believe that it would’ve sent Japan into even more chaos and destruction. However, one of the articles started that the main reason Japan surrendered was due to Soviet intervention and that Japan would’ve eaten a lot more atomic bombs without surrendering. I feel if Soviets didn’t get involved; Japan might of kept fighting even through another bomb due to their fighting spirit. If Japan kept fighting, the US might of dropped another bomb due to once again, their fighting spirit.

Joey Schifano

1/9/2020 10:55:52 am

The United States was already systematically bombing toykyo all throughout WWII so it would just be overkill

Molly Norris

12/2/2019 08:06:13 pm

I do believe that Truman purposely exaggerated the estimated numbers because there was no way he could ever estimate those numbers and still to this day we can't estimate those numbers, however we can make educated guesses and I believe he made a guess and overshot it because if he was to aim low and then there was more deaths people would wonder what could have went wrong but if there was less deaths then first estimated it seems as though there was some success

tyler schueller

12/2/2019 08:08:15 pm

Do you think that the treatment of the Japanese through internment camps and atomic bombing was at all justified by the attack on pearl harbor and the treatment of American POWs?

Annie Elvin

12/2/2019 09:41:11 pm

Although it is difficult to compare such tragedies, I believe the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the treatment of American POWs comes nowhere near justifying the atomic bombings not to mention the treatment of Japanese in internment camps. The attack on Pearl Harbor killed approximately 2,000 Americans, while both bombings combined killed between 130,000 and 226,000 Japanese citizens. Considering the majority of deaths in both tragedies were those of innocent civilians, I think it is safe to say that the US was not justified.

Jackson Pollard

12/3/2019 05:48:26 am

Considering that the Germans and Italians in America were not forced into interment camps during WWI like the Japanese in WW2, the treatment of Japanese Americans is not very justified. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that most Japanese Americans were actually willing to help the American war effort against Japan and its allies.

12/3/2019 09:25:33 pm

good question
!

Joey Schifano

1/9/2020 10:54:26 am

I do not think internment camps could have been justified by POW treatment or pearl harbor because they internies were Japanese-Americans

Larry Tian

12/2/2019 08:21:04 pm

How do you think cultural background/identity influenced both of the author’s writing? Noting that Maddox is a white professor, while Hasegawa is a Japanese professor.

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 06:26:29 pm

The cultural background/identity would definitely impact the claims that both authors make because Hasegawa would be able to better connect with the Japanese people who were impacted by the bombs and are still seeing the impact to this day. The professor was born in 1941 in Tokyo, Japan which meant that throughout his early life these events were very prominent. As a result, he is convinced that the atomic bombs weren’t necessary to end WWII. Maddox, on the other hand, probably doesn’t have much perspective from the Japanese affected by the bomb. He mostly views the topic through the lens of the American people who were trying to benefit themselves. As a result, he is convinced that the atomic bombs were necessary to end WWII.

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:32:16 pm

The second author mentioned a lot about learning from the mistakes of the past, but America often is known for justifying or promoting its previous ideologies as valid during the given time point and its circumstances, like we mentioned with the Confederate flag situation. How do you think Americans should take the atomic bombings and reflect on them? What is there to be learned from the bombings, and what is a main takeaway?

dj gill

12/2/2019 08:44:11 pm

How did the dropping of the bombs change the way nuclear power was viewed throughout the world?

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:39:20 pm

The atomic bombs definitely had an impact on what the world thought of nuclear power. They showed how dangerous war could get, and how far countries were willing to go in warfare. Additionally, it displayed how powerful the US was, which impacted the Cold War as well.

Jeshelle Venancius

12/2/2019 10:18:14 pm

It made nuclear powers more powerful and a large threat. Most people viewed it with fear.

Angela Xu

12/3/2019 06:34:58 am

People now really understood the extent of the damage that these bombs held, therefore, the world realizes the immense power that these bombs give a nation.

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:48:47 pm

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:49:17 pm

(Ignore this it's an accidental copy of the same question I posted)

Uma Bhat

12/2/2019 08:50:24 pm

If any, is there a “best” country sort of response to the validity of the dropping of the Atomic Bombs (relative to objectivity)? Or are all viewpoints of the issue inevitably biased? How do you believe the affected countries should come to terms with their so called culpability?

Kimberly Caputo

12/2/2019 09:00:05 pm

During class we were discussing the effects of the bombing in japan and many believed that the first bomb was necessary to spark a surrender and that statement was also stated in the article, the second bomb, was the one in question, do you think that America truly believed the second bombing was necessary or was it simply to prove a point to other nations about the degree of American power?

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru

12/2/2019 09:07:48 pm

To what extent did the dropping of bombs set up the nuclear weapons world of today?

Annie Elvin

12/2/2019 09:26:54 pm

I believe the introduction of nuclear weaponry played a huge role in its incorporation in modern warfare. The Cold War, which was shortly after the bombings, was built on international threats backed by presumed ownership of nuclear weapons including bombs and missiles. Many other conflicts since have involved or at least mentioned nuclear warfare.

Anisha Harkara

12/2/2019 09:12:20 pm

Do you believe that the first bomb alone could have made Japan surrender? If so, why do you think the US didn't give much time for the Japanese to respond? Do you think that the second bomb was even necessary?

Isadora siguenza

12/3/2019 01:05:59 am

The first bomb alone did not make Japan surrender but if given more time, it is possible that could have eventually happened. I believe the US was trying to make a point as to being the stronger power and investing in their own superiority. The second bomb was not necessary in any of these circumstances, especially because an atomic bomb causes mass damage let alone two, this made for deterioration of their nation

Dhairya Desai

12/2/2019 09:31:23 pm

Some historians believe that japan would have surrendered even if the soviet didn't interfere and if the bombs werent dropped either. Do you believe that this would have been the case?

Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr.

12/3/2019 08:02:43 pm

yeah

Boomer

12/3/2019 09:23:23 pm

thank you for your constructive, valuable input kind sir

Aman Kumar

12/9/2019 11:37:14 pm

I do think this is the case because the Japanese eventually knew they had to give in, however, they wanted to surrender on the most favorable terms. According to Japanese historians, the soviet invasion played a larger role in the surrender of Japan than the atomic bombs because they could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation.

Aman Kumar

12/9/2019 11:37:59 pm

This is partly the reason why they took so long to surrender.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

12/13/2019 05:56:08 pm

I believe that this would not be the case because of the way Japan views surrender. In the reading it described how it was disgraceful and basically shunned upon to surrender. Instead, the Japanese were willing to fight till the end of the war no matter if they would lose men and the war. They were willing to lose and die with honor.

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:32:05 pm

What alternatives to the atomic bombings were considered? How might these options have been better or worse in comparison to the bombs? Could these alternatives have changed the outcome of the war? Why or why not?

Danny Dimes

12/2/2019 11:57:26 pm

Ok boomer

12/3/2019 08:03:19 pm

This comment degrades the discussion. Please refrain from comments such as this one, thanks.

Boomer

12/3/2019 08:24:04 pm

Aditya Tripathi

12/3/2019 12:00:03 am

I think there were 4 possible alternatives, which are offer the Japanese conditional surrender by softening the surrendering terms, wait for the Soviets to attack Japanese-held Manchuria and Korea in the hope that the Japanese would realize the futility of continuing fighting, a naval blockade and conventional strategic bombing, or invade the Japanese Home Islands. I think that all of these options are better, as the bombs were used in a violent manner. The outcome of the war could've been different in each of the scenarios, as the naval blockade would've taken much longer to take effect and the US leaders sought to end the war as speedily as possible.

Isadora Siguenza

12/3/2019 01:01:16 am

There are many alternative to the atomic bombings that were considered. First to invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, to drop an atomic bomb on selected Japanese cities, bomb and blockade the islands, and to wait for Soviet entry into the war on August 15, or mediate a compromised peace.

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:36:15 pm

How did the use of the atomic bombs in WWII impact the Cold War? How does it affect the way people view nuclear threats today? Could this have been different if the outcome of WWII was different? What if the bombs were never used?

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 05:50:40 pm

The use of the atomic bombs in WWII was one of the catalyst for the Cold War because Truman didn’t inform the USSR about his intent to deploy nuclear weapons. This lead to festering tensions between both countries and built some mistrust. Due to the US deploying the atomic bombs, the USSR felt the need to establish their superiority by also building atomic bombs. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also established the immense destruction that results from deploying atomic bombs. As a result, people take nuclear threats very seriously today due to the enormous casualties that result. If bombs were never used, many wouldn’t know the effects of nuclear weapons which could be considered a benefit. Although, I also believe that fewer countries today would have possession of nuclear weapons because this bombing established that nuclear weapons were a possibility in war.

Arabella Cai

12/2/2019 09:40:37 pm

To what extent do you believe that racial discrimination played a role in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Jeshelle Venancius

12/2/2019 10:17:31 pm

I believe that the racial discrimination played a large role as it was one of the main reasons for the war and its attributes

Mia Ameen

12/3/2019 07:01:19 am

Racial discrimination played a major role in the bombing in Japan, which was considered a race inferior to Americans. Truman was not willing to let a small, ‘inferior’ country defeat the US. This may have pressured him to drop the bombs

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 04:13:11 pm

I believe that racial discrimination did play a huge role in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because much of the propaganda at that time dehumanized the entire population of Japan. The propaganda would usually portray all Japanese as either simple-minded through the use of broken English or with a grotesque caricature of Japanese people. Not to mention, many Americans with Japanese ancestry were sent to internment camps. This sent the message that Japanese people were dangerous and all against the United States. The separation also added to the distance the Americans felt towards the Japanese and helped the ideal spread that they were less than human. Both these aspects helped to garner support for the bombings due to the negative stereotype placed on the entire population of Japan.

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:43:29 pm

Is it possible that the authors have some kind of bias? How might this impact their claims? Could it affect how people reading their articles draw conclusions? Why or why not?

12/3/2019 09:23:53 pm

bias is there in everything

Anushka Vaidya

12/2/2019 09:50:32 pm

The article implies that some information was not properly communicated to Truman. Robert James Maddox says, "First, the report itself is studded with qualifications that casualties “are not subject to accurate estimate” and that the projection “is admittedly only an educated guess.” Second, the figures never were conveyed to Truman. They were excised at high military echelons, which is why Marshall cited only estimates for the first thirty days on Kyushu." How could this have affected the US decision to drop the atomic bombs? Why is this information important when considering if the atomic bombs were necessary or not?

Aditya Tripathi

12/3/2019 09:17:59 pm

President Truman, General Marshall and several top military chiefs considered an invasion to have the highest chance of ending the war within reasonable duration. Every possible measure would be taken to minimize casualties. President Truman considered the Kyushu plan all right from a military standpoint and that the Joint Chiefs should go ahead with it. General Marshall was convinced the invasion of Kyushu rather than sole reliance on bombing and the blockade was the best way to achieve an early Japanese surrender.

Annie Elvin

12/2/2019 09:55:11 pm

Could the second bomb have been avoided or was it necessary to getting Japan to surrender?

Mia Ameen

12/3/2019 07:15:44 am

I believe the second bomb was disastrous, but necessary to get Japan to surrender. The stubborn leaders of Japan hadn't surrendered to the firebombing in Tokyo, and wouldn't even acknowledge that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic and deadly. Unfortunately, it took the second bombing of Nagasaki to get the Japanese to admit their defeat.

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 04:15:04 pm

I think that the second bomb could have been avoided had Japan been given more time. There were only three day between the two atomic bombs and more time could have given them more time to decide what to do. After assessing the damage and seeing the effect of the atomic bomb on the people, the decision might have been different.

Noel Garcia

12/9/2019 07:48:47 am

Although I agree the second bomb could've been avoided, It's also worthy to note that Japan didn't immediately surrender after the first nuclear bomb drop. The processing time may have been too long for the general to rationalize an attack.

Aman Kumar

12/9/2019 11:31:07 pm

Although the second bomb on Japan was a horrible event, it was necessary to get Japan to surrender. In Japanese culture, it is wrong to surrender or give in to the enemy. So therefore, if it weren't for the second bomb they wouldn't have surrendered.

Jeshelle Venancius

12/2/2019 10:16:34 pm

What are some possible distinct ways that the whole war could have been avoided? do you think that a blockade could have helped?

Aditya Tripathi

12/3/2019 08:42:17 pm

At first, it seems that a naval blockade would be a good option but that length of time was simply unacceptable to US leaders who sought to end the war as speedily as possible with minimal cost to American lives. As war weariness became more widespread, the longer the war went on, the more public support for the war would erode. There was the distinct possibility that eventually the US public would become so weary that they would demand an abrupt end to the war which would defeat the aim of forcing Japan to surrender unconditionally.

Joshua Rogers

12/2/2019 10:59:46 pm

Would public opinion on dropping the bombs been more negative had the US dropped two more on Kyoto or Kokura?

Aditya Tripathi

12/3/2019 09:12:27 pm

Yes, as the public would start to believe that Truman was trying to "outdo Hitler in atrocities" and he wanted to make sure that there was enough of Japan left to destroy

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 03:37:34 pm

I believe that although some people would find the extra bombings unnecessary and look at it through a more negative light, a majority of Americans in 1945 would still continue to support dropping two additional atomic bombs. In the article, it mentions that "much wartime propaganda had encouraged the Americas to regard Hirohito as no less a war criminal than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini." This propaganda largely contributed to many Americans dehumanizing and degrading Japan which promoted the opinion that they should be destroyed. Rather than considering the individuals impacted by the atomic bombs, Americans would consider Japan, as a whole, to be evil and necessary to wipe out. For many, the realization that innocent individuals were affected by the sheer destruction of the atomic bomb was an afterthought that many didn’t consider when supporting the bombing.

Aman Kumar

12/9/2019 11:12:48 pm

It would be unnecessary. The point of dropping the atomic bombs was to get the Japanese to surrender. If they surrendered after Nagasaki and we dropped two more then we would definitely be seen in a negative light.

Isadora Siguenza

12/3/2019 12:58:54 am

I believe that Truman was hesitant with dropping the atomic bomb but still ended up following through with this action. In the article, claims were made about how the long term affects of the bomb were unknown at this time, and Truman was not aware of all damage that could possibly happen. Even though this piece of information is from the article I think it is impossible for Truman to be unaware of all the harmful effects that could potentially last from an atomic bomb.

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 04:10:00 pm

I agree that Truman likely knew that there would be some kind of damage but I don't think that he was hesitant because he didn't know everything about it. In the first article it was mentioned that there were some figures that were never told to Truman. I don't think this justifies what he did, but I don't know how hesitant he could have been without all the facts. Truman would have had to have made the decision based on what he knew and he wouldn't have been aware that there was additional information.

Jackson Pollard

12/3/2019 05:45:59 am

I believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more of a "power play" against the Soviet Union since they were already pressing Japan towards surrender, and that the justification for the bombings was mostly from the dehumanization of the Japanese people through means such as war propaganda and racial discrimination.

Angela Xu

12/3/2019 06:32:41 am

Do you think that if Truman maybe had more colleagues that opposed the use of atomic bombs other than just Eisenhower the result would’ve been different?

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 03:55:03 pm

If Truman had other colleagues who had opposed using atomic bombs there would have been more of a debate over if it should be used or not. The more people that had opposed it the less likely it would have been that the atomic bombs would have been used. Since many were in favor of using an atomic bomb the decision might have occurred quickly but if there had been debate, the decision would have taken more time.

Mia Ameen

12/3/2019 04:25:44 pm

No, even most of the American public were in shock when the atomic bombs were dropped, no colleague could've convinced Truman not to drop the bomb

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 03:41:17 pm

In the first article it mentioned that if the US had done a land invasion, Americans would have been upset that the atomic bomb hadn't been used. Do you agree that this would have been the case or would Americans have reacted differently?

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 03:49:37 pm

Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that his immediate response to the atomic bomb was against it. Do you think other people had the same initial response but changed their minds?

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

12/13/2019 05:31:09 pm

Yes, I believe that like Eisenhower, people were initially against the atomic bomb but eventually changed their minds. I believe that initially they did not know the damage they were going to have to deal with and the extent of the bomb which made them hesitant. However, after contemplating the pros and cons of dropping the atomic bomb, people changed their mind believing that the bomb was the fastest and easiest way to save American lives and end the war.

Ashley Elliott

12/3/2019 04:18:16 pm

Why would Truman not have allowed Japan to keep their form of government if it would have ended the war sooner?

Mia Ameen

12/3/2019 04:23:10 pm

I believe no concrete conclusion about WWI and whether or not it could've been avoided can ever be reach because of a lack of information. Many key events like the making of the atomic bombs and the human experiments Japanese conducted on prisoners were kept in secret from the public. It is possible that there are more government secrets not yet released to the public, which could change any opinions we have about the war now.

Varun Pillai

12/5/2019 10:21:23 pm

Do you think that America had also followed through with the bombings in order to showcase their atomic power? Their strengths and technological advancements would be showcased to the world through these events.

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 03:02:21 pm

Do you believe that the US government manipulated facts in order to convince Americans that the bombing was necessary and moral? If this manipulation hadn’t occurred, do you think that the Americans would have still supported the bombing in Japan?

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 03:04:02 pm

*Sorry, this was supposed to be a new comment

lol ur late

12/8/2019 10:35:10 pm

lol ur late.

Nishka Mathew

12/8/2019 03:04:51 pm

I definitely think that America bombed Japan to showcase their atomic power because as the first country to do so, it established the United States as a strength to be reckoned with and introduced power that hadn’t been seen before. In the article, it discusses how Truman wanted to drop the bomb as a way of “atomic diplomacy” towards the Soviet Union. This indicates that the United States felt the need to showcase their atomic power in order to threaten the Soviet Union as well as other countries because they would be more manageable if they were fearful of the destruction America could cause.

Lol

12/8/2019 10:34:55 pm

Lol ur late

Noel Garcia

12/9/2019 07:45:50 am

How did nuclear bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki influence the brinksmanship showed during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Logan Siege

12/9/2019 10:15:45 am

What could have been some immediate and/or long term impacts if the United States had elected to bomb Tokyo instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Nandana Pillai

12/9/2019 09:28:01 pm

Do you think that the Japanese surrender would have taken place as quickly as it did if it had not been for the intervention of the emperor?

Aman Kumar

12/9/2019 11:40:27 pm

Which played a larger role in the surrender of Japan? Soviet invasion or the atomic bombs?

u r late link

12/10/2019 10:58:24 am

Srinidhi Ekkurthi

12/13/2019 05:21:01 pm

While the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima can be somewhat justified in order to end a war, do you think that the second bomb on Nagasaki was necessary? If not what do you think the reason the bomb was dropped?

Annie Pi

1/8/2020 12:24:27 pm

The Potsdam ultimatum was not discussed in this article, could that have provided a plausible alternative to the mass death caused by the atomic bombs?

Joey Schifano

1/9/2020 10:46:13 am

I do not think Truman's actions were justified by saving American lives. I think that conventional warfare would have been a more fair humane alternative.

Comments are closed.

Scored Discussion #4, Fall 2019

Scored Discussion #4

Archives

Categories